The Political Personalities of 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidates George W

College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU

Psychology Faculty Publications Psychology

7-2000

The Political Personalities of 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore

Aubrey Immelman St. John's University / College of St. Benedict, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs

Part of the American Politics Commons, Leadership Studies Commons, Other Political Science Commons, Other Psychology Commons, and the Personality and Social Contexts Commons

Recommended Citation Immelman, A. (2000, July). The political personalities of 2000 U.S. presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Seattle, WA, July 1-4, 2000. Retrieved from Digital Commons website: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/35/

THE POLITICAL PERSONALITIES

OF 2000 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

GEORGE W. BUSH AND AL GORE

Aubrey Immelman

Department of Psychology Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics http://uspp.csbsju.edu/ Saint John’s University College of Saint Benedict St. Joseph, MN 56374

Telephone: (320) 363-5481 E-mail: [email protected]

Paper presented at the Twenty-Third Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology

Seattle, Washington

July 1–4, 2000

Acknowledgment. Dale Fredrickson, Tom Lewandowski, Jennie Scott, and Rochelle Szokoly assisted with the data collection for this study. Jason Bartos assisted with graphics and design, read the manuscript, and offered helpful suggestions.

Abstract

THE POLITICAL PERSONALITIES OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES GEORGE W. BUSH AND AL GORE

Aubrey Immelman Department of Psychology Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics http://uspp.csbsju.edu/ Saint John’s University College of Saint Benedict St. Joseph, MN 56374, U.S.A.

This paper presents the results of indirect psychodiagnostic assessments of the political personalities of Texas governor George W. Bush and U.S. vice president Al Gore, putative Republican and Democratic nominees in the U.S. presidential election of 2000, from the conceptual perspective of Theodore Millon. Information concerning George W. Bush and Al Gore was collected from published biographical and autobiographical accounts and political reports in the print media, and synthesized into personality profiles using the second edition of the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC), which yields 34 normal and maladaptive personality classifications congruent with Axis II of DSM–IV.

The personality profiles yielded by the MIDC were analyzed in accordance with interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Governor Bush was found to be Outgoing/gregarious and Dominant/controlling. Vice President Gore was found to be Conscientious/dutiful and Retiring/aloof.

A dimensional reconceptualization of the results to examine convergences among the present Millon-based findings, Simonton’s dimensions of presidential style, and the five-factor model suggests that Bush is highly charismatic/extraverted and somewhat interpersonal/agreeable, but not very deliberative/conscientious, whereas Gore is highly deliberative/conscientious, somewhat lacking in interpersonality/agreeableness, and low in charisma/extraversion.

George W. Bush’s major personality-based leadership strengths are his skills in connecting with critical constituencies and mobilizing popular support, and his ability to retain a following and his self-confidence in the face of adversity. His major limitations include propensities for a superficial grasp of complex issues, being easily bored, acting impulsively, and favoring personal connections, friendship, and loyalty over competence in his staffing decisions and appointments.

Al Gore’s major personality-based leadership strengths are his conscientiousness, a detail- oriented ability to craft specific policies, and low susceptibility to ethical misconduct. His major limitations are his disdain for social interaction, his lack of spontaneity and personability (with an associated deficit of important political skills crucial for mobilizing and retaining popular support), and his self-defeating potential for dogmatically pursuing personal policy preferences despite legislative or public disapproval.

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 1

Introduction

It’s a hot simmering day in August 1989. The new part-owner of the Texas Rangers is sitting behind the batting cage watching baseball practice. The $2,500 black eel-skin boots of the Lone Star state’s future governor are clearly visible, as is the emblazoned Texas flag, which seems as vibrant as “Dubya” himself.

To those who know him best, presidential candidate George W. Bush is a likeable, gregarious personality, charming and congenial. If ever proof was needed that character endures, Dubya would be it: college classmates characterize Bush as “personable,” “outgoing,” and “funny,” while childhood friends describe “the Bombastic Bushkin” in similar terms.

The words commonly used to characterize Bush capture the essence of what contemporary personality theorist Theodore Millon (1994a) calls the “outgoing personality pattern.” But Bush’s college cronies also remember him as “mischievous” and “a prankster.” These words conjure up images of Millon’s “dissenting pattern” — a dauntless, adventurous, unruly personality type.

Bush’s colorful life story bears witness to his outgoing streak, checkered with an unruly, dauntless element. At age 20, frat boy George was questioned, arrested, and charged with disorderly conduct following the disappearance of a wreath from a New Haven storefront. (The charges were later dropped.) The errant scion of the Bush clan had another run-in with the law at Princeton when, with fellow frolicking Yale fans, he flattened the goal posts following a football game. This time, Bush was detained, questioned, and told to leave town.

For a future governor who would later invoke education as an election incantation, the budding young Bush’s college years at Yale were remarkably rooted in the less cerebral components of a college education.

Following graduation from Yale, a Vietnam-era stint in the Texas Air National Guard, and armed with his natural exuberance, his daddy’s connections, and an MBA from Harvard Business School, Bush returned to Texas in the summer of 1975 to forge a career for himself in the risky oil exploration and development business. Risky, perhaps, but not unusual for someone with an adventurous, dauntless personality with its love of high-risk challenges and talent for thriving on sheer wits and ingenuity.

Throughout his time in the oil business, Bush, by his own admission, was “drinking and carousing and fumbling around.” The “so-called wild, exotic days” of his youth ended abruptly just after his 40th birthday when Bush unceremoniously “jumped on the wagon,” reigned in his unruliness, and turned his life in a direction that would ultimately lead him to the pinnacle of power in politics.

The erratic path of George W. Bush’s coming-of-age as a politician — “. . . when I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible,” to quote Bush — raises legitimate questions concerning his character. But it is Vice President Al Gore — perhaps owing to “guilt 2 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore by association” stemming from his position as number-two man in the scandal-plagued Clinton administration — who has been more persistently subjected to public scrutiny in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election.

On August 28, 1997 The New York Times assailed Vice President Gore for his “repugnant” misuse of federal property for fundraising purposes and called for an independent counsel to investigate the matter (Al Gore meets the enemy, 1997). Previously, Gore could bask in his image as “an All-American boy . . . [without] mud on his uniform,” having “a squeaky-clean record,” and a reputation for decency and morality “so impressive you’d think he was born with his pants on” (Elvin, 1997).

Gore appeared increasingly beset by scandal as television news programs broadcast embarrassing images of Buddhist nuns testifying before a Senate committee that they were reimbursed for checks made out to the Democratic National Committee following an ostensible vice-presidential fundraiser at the Hsi Lai temple in Hacienda Heights, California, on April 29, 1996 (Fineman, 1997). Although Attorney General Janet Reno twice refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Gore’s fundraising practices before the statute expired in 1999, sources in the Justice Department revealed in June 2000 that the chief of Reno’s campaign finance unit had recommended that the attorney general refer Mr. Gore’s case to a special counsel (Johnston, 2000).

The fundraising fiasco represents the biggest crisis in Al Gore’s long, distinguished political career. For political psychology, charges of impropriety against Gore — flying in the face, so to speak, of his prior reputation for unblemished integrity — present a conceptual dilemma. The personality construct is predicated on the assumption that an individual’s psychological functioning is shaped by a coherent set of tightly knit, pervasive, enduring dispositions, yielding temporal stability and cross-situational consistency in the core domains of psychological functioning.

Though compelling contextual and role-related variables modulate and modify the expression of personal attributes, personality psychologists expect functional continuity. Accordingly, the differential salience of abrupt discontinuity is rendered both perplexing and intriguing. That prompts the question: Is Al Gore’s “repugnant” fundraising behavior simply a function of his particular role in a given political context, or is it indicative of a heretofore hidden character flaw, or both?

Pervasive public skepticism about “politics as usual” in the wake of the Vietnam war, the Watergate scandal, the Iran-contra affair, and the Clinton impeachment saga has elevated the construct of personality to a position of prominence in the study of political leadership. Its relevance is captured in Renshon’s (1996) contention that

many of the most important aspects of presidential performance rely on the personal characteristics and skills of the president. . . . It is his views, his goals, his bargaining skills . . . , his judgments, his choices of response to arising circumstance that set the levers of administrative, constitutional, and institutional structures into motion. (p. 7)

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 3

This perspective provides the context for the present study,1 whose object was to assess the personalities of presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore and to examine the political implications of personality for presidential leadership and executive performance.

Background to the Study

In his landmark work on the analysis of personality in politics and the political consequences of political actors’ personal characteristics, Greenstein (1969) lamented that the study of personality in politics was “not a thriving scholarly endeavor,” principally because “scholars who study politics do not feel equipped to analyze personality in ways that meet their intellectual standards. . . . [rendering it primarily] the preserve of journalists” (p. 2). Thirty years later, the situation is much the same, as witnessed by the meager impact of scholarly work in political personality relative to the prominence of “pop-psychological” analyses such as those of Vanity Fair’s Gail Sheehy (e.g., 1988, 1999) in shaping public perceptions of political candidates and high-level leaders. The present study seeks to advance Greenstein’s vision for the scholarly analysis of personality in politics.

The practical importance of scholarly investigation of the role of personality in politics is implicit in Renshon’s (1995, 1996) developmentalist perspective on public psychology, in which he argues that each era has its own particular developmental crisis. This “basic public dilemma” — “a fundamental, unresolved question concerning public psychology” — confronts all political candidates and officeholders and “underlies and frames more specific policy debates” (Renshon, 1996, p. 16).

In short, leadership choice reflects voters’ assessment of a candidate’s character and the candidate’s ability to address the basic public dilemma. In the absence of valid, reliable, empirically based data voters can easily be misguided by superficial determinants of impression formation such as a candidate’s “charisma,” or by the polished image spun by a political campaign for public consumption. The case for conducting personality-in-politics research is compelling, though the deterrents are daunting.

In his early efforts to chart a course for the field’s development, Greenstein (1969) noted that the personality-and-politics literature was “formidably gnarled — empirically, methodologically, and conceptually” (p. 2). Though this, too, is largely still the case, Simonton, in his 1990 review of the field of personality and politics, noted that the dominant paradigm in the psychological examination of leaders had shifted from an earlier preponderance of qualitative, idiographic, psychobiographical analysis to more quantitative and nomothetic methods.

1 Earlier studies of Gore (Immelman, 1998b) and Bush (Immelman, 1999b) were presented at the 1998 and 1999 meetings of the International Society of Political Psychology. Although additional data were collected for the present study, Gore’s profile remains unchanged and Bush’s virtually the same, the only change of any consequence being that Bush’s secondary Dauntless pattern in the 1999 study is displaced in the present study by the Dominant pattern, relegating the Dauntless pattern to third-rank elevation. 4 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

A Psychodiagnostic Approach to the Indirect Assessment of Personality in Politics

Favoring a more systematic, quantitative, nomothetic approach, I have adapted Millon’s model of personality (1969, 1986a, 1986b, 1990, 1991, 1994a, 1996; Millon & Davis, 2000; Millon & Everly, 1985) for the biographically based study of political personality (see Immelman, 1993, 1998a). The resulting methodology, termed psychodiagnostic meta-analysis,2 entails the construction of theoretically grounded personality profiles derived from empirical analysis of diagnostically relevant content in political-psychological analyses, journalistic accounts, and biographies or autobiographies of political figures.

Millon’s conceptual model offers a promising foundation for the scientific investigation of personality in relation to political leadership: epistemologically, it synthesizes the formerly disparate fields of psychopathology and normatology and formally connects them to “broader spheres of scientific knowledge,” most notably “their foundations in the natural sciences” (Millon, 1991, pp. 356–357); diagnostically, it offers an empirically validated taxonomy of personality patterns congruent with the syndromes described on Axis II of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (APA; 1994), thus rendering it compatible with conventional psychodiagnostic procedures and standard clinical practice in personality assessment. In short, Millon offers a theoretically coherent alternative to existing conceptual frameworks and assessment methodologies for the psychological examination of political leaders.

The present psychodiagnostic approach to studying political personality is equivalent to that of Simonton (1986, 1988) in that it quantifies, reduces, and organizes qualitative data derived from published biographical materials. As observed by Simonton, who has credited Etheredge (1978) with establishing the diagnostic utility “of abstracting individual traits immediately from biographic data” to uncover the link between personality and political leadership (1990, p. 677), “biographical materials [not only] . . . supply a rich set of facts about childhood experiences and career development . . . [but] such secondary sources can offer the basis for personality assessments as well” (1986, p. 150).

Millon’s Model of Personality

Knutson (1973, pp. 34–35), in her authoritative critique of the study of personality in politics nearly three decades ago, stipulated three critical requirements for the operationalization of research designs in political personality:

2 I use the term meta-analysis because the personality profiles represent a synthesis of the observations of others, including biographers, psychobiographers, historians, psychohistorians, journalists, political analysts, and political psychologists. I use the term psychodiagnostic because the conceptual framework is more closely related to the realm of contemporary clinical assessment than to classic psychobiography or to conventional social-psychological and cognitive approaches to the assessment of political personality. The “psychodiagnostic” label is not intended to imply a presupposition of psychopathology: diagnostic is used in a generic sense to denote a process “serving to distinguish or identify,” as defined in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1997); accordingly, the object is to identify a leader’s personality configuration and to specify its political implications. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 5

. Clearly conceptualize the meaning of the term personality . Delineate attributes of personality amenable to scientific study . Specify how the designated attributes relate to the personality construct

Millon’s model satisfies all three of Knutson’s criteria. A comprehensive review of Millon’s personological model and its applicability to political personality has been provided elsewhere (see Immelman, 1993, 1998a). The present description is limited to a concise account of the basic conceptual features of the model.

Defining personality. Millon (1986a) defines personality as

a psychic system of structures and functions . . . [that is] not a potpourri of unrelated traits and miscellaneous behaviors, but a tightly-knit organization of stable structures . . . and coordinated functions. . . . [A]n integrated pattern of characteristics and inclinations that are deeply etched, cannot be easily eradicated, and pervade every facet of life experience. . . . [A] distinctive configuration of interlocking perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. (p. 643)

Delineating the core attributes of personality. In constructing an integrated personality framework that accounts for “the patterning of characteristics across the entire matrix of the person” (Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 2), Millon (1994b) favors a theoretically grounded “prototypal domain model” (p. 292) that combines quantitative dimensional elements (e.g., the five-factor approach) with the qualitative categorical approach of the DSM–IV. The categorical aspect of Millon’s model is represented by eight universal attribute domains relevant to all personality patterns, namely expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, mood/temperament, self-image, regulatory mechanisms, object representations, and morphologic organization (see Table 1).

Assessing personality on the basis of variability across attributes. Millon specifies prototypal features (diagnostic criteria) within each of the eight domains for each personality style (Millon & Everly, 1985) or disorder (1986b, 1990, 1996) accommodated in his taxonomy. The dimensional aspect of Millon’s schema is achieved by rating the “prominence or pervasiveness” (1994b, p. 292) of the diagnostic criteria associated with the various personality types, yielding, in effect, a profile of hypothetically stable and enduring personality patterns.

The principle of syndromal continuity. In addition to satisfying Knutson’s three criteria, Millon’s model offers an integrative view of normality and psychopathology, arguing that “[n]o sharp line divides normal from pathological behavior; they are relative concepts representing arbitrary points on a continuum or gradient” (Millon, 1994b, p. 283). Thus, whereas criteria for normality include “a capacity to function autonomously and competently, a tendency to adjust to one’s environment effectively and efficiently, a subjective sense of contentment and satisfaction, and the ability to actualize or to fulfill one’s potentials” (p. 283), the presence of psychopathology is established by the degree to which a person is deficient in these areas.

6 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Table 1 Millon’s Eight Attribute Domains

Attribute Description

Expressive behavior The individual’s characteristic behavior; how the individual typically appears to others; what the individual knowingly or unknowingly reveals about him- or herself; what the individual wishes others to think or to know about him or her. Interpersonal conduct How the individual typically interacts with others; the attitudes that underlie, prompt, and give shape to these actions; the methods by which the individual engages others to meet his or her needs; how the individual copes with social tensions and conflicts. Cognitive style How the individual focuses and allocates attention, encodes and processes information, organizes thoughts, makes attributions, and communicates reactions and ideas to others. Mood/temperament How the individual typically displays emotion; the predominant character of an individual’s affect and the intensity and frequency with which he or she expresses it. Self-image The individual’s perception of self-as-object or the manner in which the individual overtly describes him- or herself. Regulatory mechanisms The individual’s characteristic mechanisms of self-protection, need gratification, and conflict resolution. Object representations The inner imprint left by the individual’s significant early experiences with others; the structural residue of significant past experiences, composed of memories, attitudes, and affects that underlie the individual’s perceptions of and reactions to ongoing events and serves as a substrate of dispositions for perceiving and reacting to life’s ongoing events. Morphologic organization The overall architecture that serves as a framework for the individual’s psychic interior; the structural strength, interior congruity, and functional efficacy of the personality system (i.e., ego strength).

Note. From Disorders of Personality: DSM–IV and Beyond (pp. 141–146) by T. Millon, 1996, New York: Wiley; Toward a New Personology: An Evolutionary Model (chap. 5) by T. Millon, 1990, New York: Wiley; and Personality and Its Disorders: A Biosocial Learning Approach (p. 32) by T. Millon and G. S. Everly, Jr., 1985, New York: Wiley. Copyright © 1996, © 1990, © 1985 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

At base, then, Millon regards pathology as resulting “from the same forces . . . involved in the development of normal functioning . . . , [the determining influence being] the character, timing, and intensity” (p. 283) of these factors (see also Millon, 1996, pp. 12–13). From this perspective, psychological assessment involves the classification of individuals on a range of dimensions, each representing a normal–pathological continuum within a specific personality pattern (or scale), thus yielding a profile of scale elevations that reveals the subject’s overall personality configuration.

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 7

Although the potential of Millon’s model for informing the assessment of personality in politics is immense, its intended scope does not encompass political psychology. In this regard Renshon (1996), who has championed the need for a dual theory of character and leadership, offers a model for the construction of an integrated framework for the psychological assessment of presidential candidates. Specifically, Renshon proposes “three distinct aspects” (p. 226) of political leadership shaped by character: mobilization — the ability to arouse, engage, and direct the public; orchestration — the organizational skill and ability to craft specific policies; and consolidation — the skills and tasks required to preserve the supportive relationships necessary for implementing and institutionalizing one’s policy judgments (pp. 227, 411).

Purpose of the Study

The present investigation is a psychodiagnostic case study of George Walker Bush, governor of the state of Texas and presumptive Republican Party nominee in the 2000 presidential election; and Albert Arnold “Al” Gore Jr., vice president of the United States, former congressman and senator from the state of Tennessee, and presumptive Democratic Party nominee in the 2000 presidential election. The purpose of the study was to construct Millon- based personality profiles of George W. Bush and Al Gore, and to explore the relationship between their prevailing personality patterns and prospective political role performance.

Method

Materials

The materials consisted of biographical sources, journalistic accounts, and the personality inventory employed to systematize and synthesize diagnostically relevant information collected from the literature on George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Sources of data. Diagnostic information pertaining to the personal and public lives of Bush and Gore was gathered from a wide variety of sources. Ideally, biographical material should be selected with a view to securing broadly representative data sets; criteria employed in the present study included comprehensiveness of scope (e.g., coverage of developmental history as well as adult life), inclusiveness of literary genre (e.g., biography, autobiography, scholarly analysis, and journalism), and the writer’s perspective (e.g., admiring, critical, calculatedly balanced). With reference to Bush the following sources were consulted for diagnostic information:

1. First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty (1999), a biography by Bill Minutaglio of The Dallas Morning News. 2. George W. Bush: A Charge to Keep (1999), Bush’s campaign autobiography, written with the assistance of his communications director Karen Hughes. 3. “Is there room on a Republican ticket for another Bush?” by Sam Howe Verhovek, New York Times Texas correspondent for five years, in the September 13, 1998 issue of The New York Times Magazine. 4. “Who is George W. Bush?” a special report in the June 1999 issue of Texas Monthly magazine, including generally admiring contributions by Pamela Colloff, Helen Thorpe, Skip Hollandsworth, Patricia Kilday Hart, Evan Smith, Joe Nick Patoski, and Paul Burka. 8 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

5. A seven-part series of articles by Lois Romano and George Lardner Jr., Washington Post staff writers, in the July 25–31, 1999 issues of The Washington Post.

With reference to Gore the following sources were consulted for diagnostic information:

1. Al Gore Jr.: His Life and Career (1992), a hagiographic chronicle by Hank Hillin, former FBI agent and at the time of writing the sheriff of Nashville, Tennessee. In spite of his unconventional credentials in the genre, Hillin’s book nonetheless provided useful biographic information and informative accounts by individuals well acquainted with Gore during his formative years. 2. All’s Fair: Love, War, and Running for President (1994), by political commentators and consultants Mary Matalin and James Carville. 3. On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency (1994) by political writer and broadcast media commentator Elizabeth Drew. 4. The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House (1994) by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post. 5. The Choice (1996) by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post. 6. Gore: A Political Life (1999), a biography by Bob Zelnick, a former ABC News correspondent teaching at Boston University. 7. “Can Al bare his soul?” — an in-depth article by Eric Pooley and Karen Tumulty, in the December 15, 1997 issue of Time magazine. 8. “Who’s sorry now?” by Frank Rich, in the December 16, 1997 issue of The New York Times.

Personality inventory. The assessment instrument, the second edition of the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC; Immelman & Steinberg, 1999), was compiled and adapted from Millon’s (1969, 1986b; 1990, 1996; Millon & Everly, 1985) prototypal features and diagnostic criteria for normal personality styles and their pathological variants.3 The compilation of this inventory and the development of a scoring system was stimulated by the need (see Immelman, 1993) for a psychodiagnostically relevant conceptual framework and methodology for the indirect assessment of political leaders. Information concerning the construction, administration, scoring, and interpretation of the MIDC is provided in the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria manual (Immelman, 1999a).4

Following Millon (1986b), each of the 170 MIDC items consists of a defining term and a brief description to amplify or illustrate the typical diagnostic indicators for each criterion. The MIDC is coordinated with Axis II of the DSM–IV and the normal personality styles in which these disorders are rooted, and taps the five attribute domains characterized by Millon (1990, p. 157) as essentially “noninferential,” namely expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, mood/temperament, and self-image. Millon (1990) has attested that this “narrower scope of [five directly observable] attributes . . . [is] sufficient to provide a reasonably comprehensive picture” of a person’s major characteristics (p. 160).

3 Inventory available upon request from the author.

4 Manual available upon request from the author. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 9

Millon’s assertion is congruent with Greenstein’s (1969) proposition that descriptions of phenomenology — “regularities in the ways that . . . [the political actor] presents himself to the observer — are the most immediately relevant supplement to situational data in predicting and explaining the actor’s behavior”; that “these accounts, if they stay close enough to the texture of the observables, can be agreed upon by investigators with theoretical interests as diverse as learning-theory and psychoanalysis”; and that psychological dynamics — “the inner trends accounting for the outer regularities — are . . . less immediately necessary for the analysis of behavior” (p. 144).5

The 12 MIDC scales correspond to major personality patterns posited by Millon (e.g., 1994a, 1996) and are coordinated with the normal personality styles described by Oldham and Morris (1995) and Strack (1997). Scales 1 through 8 (comprising 10 scales and subscales) have three gradations (a, b, c) yielding 30 personality variants, whereas Scales 9 and 0 have two gradations (d, e), yielding four variants, for a total of 34 personality designations, or types. The taxonomy is founded on the principle of “syndromal continuity” as defined by Millon and Everly (1985), namely that personality disorders are “exaggerated and pathologically distorted deviations emanating from a normal and healthy distribution of traits” (p. 34). Thus, gradations a and b fall within the “normal” or well-adjusted range of personality functioning, whereas gradations c, d, and e, being in the pathologically disturbed range, encompass the domain of formal personality disorders. Gradation c personality types are mildly dysfunctional, whereas gradations d and e constitute more seriously maladaptive syndromes.6 In summary, the 34-fold classification system allows for the differential identification (diagnosis) of 20 normal personality styles (the ten scales and subscales of Scales 1–8, gradations a and b) and 14 pathological variants (the ten scales and subscales of Scales 1–8, gradation c; Scales 9–0, gradations d and e).

In interpreting the MIDC profile it must be borne in mind that the measurement scale is ordinal, intended primarily to classify subjects into a graded sequence of personality classifications or levels (ranging from normal to disturbed) such that subjects at a particular level are relatively alike with respect to the scale in question and subjects at successively higher levels possess progressively more exaggerated or distorted features of the attributes comprising the scale. Table 2 displays the full taxonomy.

5 Greenstein (1969) further notes that genesis — “aspects of inborn structure, maturation, and experience that culminated in the observed presenting features and the inferred underlying dynamics” (p. 66) “are most remote from [explaining] the immediate nexus of behavior” (p. 145). Though beyond the scope of the present endeavor, Millon’s (1996) model does address developmental background, including hypothesized biogenic factors (e.g., heredity, infantile reaction patterns, and neurological characteristics), characteristic experiential history (e.g., parenting styles and family dynamics), and self-perpetuation processes.

6 No doubt the placement of individuals on the adaptive–maladaptive continuum is a complex and controversial undertaking (see Frances, Widiger, & Sabshin, 1991, for a review). Establishing the viability and utility of such an endeavor awaits empirical confirmation. 10 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Table 2 Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria: Scales and Gradations

Scale 1A: Dominant pattern a. Asserting b. Controlling c. Aggressive (Sadistic; DSM–III–R, Appendix A) Scale 1B: Dauntless pattern a. Adventurous b. Dissenting c. Aggrandizing (Antisocial; DSM–IV, 301.7) Scale 2: Ambitious pattern a. Confident b. Self-serving c. Exploitative (Narcissistic; DSM–IV, 301.81) Scale 3: Outgoing pattern a. Congenial b. Gregarious c. Impulsive (Histrionic; DSM–IV, 301.50) Scale 4: Accommodating pattern a. Cooperative b. Agreeable c. Submissive (Dependent; DSM–IV, 301.6) Scale 5A: Aggrieved pattern a. Unpresuming b. Self-denying c. Self-defeating (DSM–III–R, Appendix A) Scale 5B: Contentious pattern a. Resolute b. Oppositional c. Negativistic (Passive-aggressive; DSM–III–R, 301.84) Scale 6: Conscientious pattern a. Respectful b. Dutiful c. Compulsive (Obsessive-compulsive; DSM–IV, 301.4) Scale 7: Reticent pattern a. Circumspect b. Inhibited c. Withdrawn (Avoidant; DSM–IV, 301.82) Scale 8: Retiring pattern a. Reserved b. Aloof c. Solitary (Schizoid; DSM–IV, 301.20) Scale 9: Distrusting pattern d. Suspicious e. Paranoid (DSM–IV, 301.0) Scale 0: Erratic pattern d. Unstable e. Borderline (DSM–IV, 301.83)

Note. Equivalent DSM terminology and codes are specified in parentheses.

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 11

Diagnostic Procedure

Psychodiagnostic meta-analysis can be conceptualized as a three-part process: first, an analysis phase (data collection) during which source materials are reviewed and analyzed to extract and code diagnostically relevant psychobiographical content; second, a synthesis phase (scoring and interpretation) during which the unifying framework provided by the MIDC prototypal features, keyed for attribute domain and personality pattern, is employed to classify the diagnostically relevant information extracted in phase one; and finally, an evaluation phase (inference) during which theoretically grounded descriptions, explanations, inferences, and predictions are extrapolated from Millon’s theory of personality, based on the personality profile constructed in phase two. For a more detailed discussion of the diagnostic procedure, see Immelman (1998a, 1999a). Suffice it to note here that interpretation of the MIDC profile is based primarily on identifying the subject’s principal personality patterns (categorical distinctiveness) and to note the specific elevation (scale gradation, or dimensional prominence) within each of these patterns. This establishes the identity of the primary and secondary personality designations relevant to describing the political personality of the subject. Personality patterns (i.e., scale labels) and gradations (i.e., types) are reported in the format: Pattern/gradation (e.g., Dominant/asserting).

Results

The analysis of the data includes a summary of descriptive statistics yielded by the MIDC scoring procedure, the MIDC profiles for George W. Bush and Al Gore, diagnostic classification of the subjects, and the clinical interpretation of significant MIDC scale elevations derived from the diagnostic procedure.

Bush received 34 endorsements on the 170-item MIDC, and Gore 43. Descriptive statistics for the MIDC ratings obtained by Bush and Gore are presented in Table 3. Judging from endorsement rates below the mean, the domain of cognitive style was the most difficult to gauge for Bush, whereas for Gore mood/temperament and self-image received relatively few endorsements.

Table 3 MIDC Item Endorsement Rate by Attribute Domain

Attribute domain Bush Gore

Expressive behavior 8 11 Interpersonal conduct 6 11 Cognitive style 4 8 Mood/temperament 8 6 Self-image 8 7 Sum 34 43 Mean 6.8 8.6 Standard deviation 1.6 2.1

12 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

MIDC scale scores for Bush and Gore are reported in Table 4. The same data are presented graphically in Figure 1 (with Bush’s profile depicted as solid lines and Gore’s as dashed lines).

Table 4 MIDC Scale Scores

Bush Gore

Scale Personality pattern Raw RT% Raw RT%

1A Dominant (Controlling) 11 26.2 8 13.3 1B Dauntless (Dissenting) 5 11.9 2 3.3 2 Ambitious (Asserting) 4 9.5 3 5.0 3 Outgoing (Outgoing) 16 38.1 1 1.7 4 Accommodating (Agreeing) 4 9.5 4 6.7 5A Aggrieved (Yielding) 0 0.0 1 1.7 5B Contentious (Complaining) 0 0.0 3 5.0 6 Conscientious (Conforming) 2 4.8 22 36.7 7 Reticent (Hesitating) 0 0.0 5 8.3 8 Retiring (Retiring) 0 0.0 11 18.3 Subtotal for basic scales 42 100.0 60 100.0 9 Distrusting 0 0.0 12 16.7 0 Erratic 4 8.7 0 0.0 Full-scale total 46 108.7 72 116.7

Note. For Scales 1–8, ratio-transformed (RT%) scores are the scores for each scale expressed as a percentage of the sum of raw scores for the ten basic scales only. For Scales 9 and 0, RT% scores are scores expressed as a percentage of the sum of raw scores for all twelve MIDC scales (therefore, full-scale RT% totals can exceed 100). Scale names in parentheses signify equivalent personality patterns in the Millon Index of Personality Styles (Millon, 1994a).

Bush’s Profile

The MIDC profile yielded by the raw scores for Bush is displayed (as solid lines) in Figure 1.7 Bush’s most elevated scale, with a score of 16, is Scale 3 (Outgoing), followed by Scale 1A (Dominant), with a score of 11. The primary Scale 3 elevation is well within the prominent (10– 23) range and the secondary elevation (Scale 1A) is just within this range. One additional scale is diagnostically significant: Scale 1B (Dauntless) with a score of 5, placing this modest elevation just within the present (5–9) range. Scale 2 (Ambitious) and Scale 4 (Accommodating) approach diagnostic significance.

7 See Table 2 for scale names. Solid horizontal lines on the profile form signify cut-off scores between adjacent scale gradations. For Scales 1–8, scores of 5 through 9 signify the presence (gradation a) of the personality pattern in question; scores of 10 through 23 indicate a prominent (gradation b) variant; and scores of 24 or higher indicate an exaggerated, mildly dysfunctional (gradation c) variation of the pattern. For Scales 9 and 0, scores of 20 through 35 indicate a moderately disturbed syndrome and scores of 34 through 45 a markedly disturbed syndrome. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 13

Figure 1. Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria: Profiles for George W. Bush and Al Gore

40 ------Markedly 36 ------e e disturbed

33 ------

30 ------

27 ------Mildly disturbed 24 c c

21 ------Moderately d d disturbed 18 ------

15 - -

12 ------Prominent 10 b b - -

8 - -

6 ------

Present 5 a a - -

4 - -

3 ------

2 ------

1 ------

0 ------

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8 9 0 Bush: 11 5 4 16 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Gore: 8 2 3 1 4 1 3 22 5 11 12 0

14 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

In terms of MIDC scale gradation (see Table 2 and Figure 1) criteria, George W. Bush was classified as an amalgam of the Outgoing/gregarious and Dominant/controlling personality patterns, with subsidiary features of the Dauntless/adventurous pattern.8 Based on the cut-off score guidelines provided in the MIDC manual, Bush’s scale elevations (see Figure 1) are within normal limits, though Scale 3 (Outgoing) and Scale 1A (Dominant) are moderately elevated, in the prominent range.

Gore’s Profile

The MIDC profile yielded by the raw scores for Gore is displayed (as dashed lines) in Figure 1.9 Gore’s most elevated scale, with a score of 22, is Scale 6 (Conscientious), followed by Scale 8 (Retiring), with a score of 11. The primary Scale 6 elevation approaches the upper extreme of the prominent (10–23) range and the secondary elevation (Scale 8) is just within this range. Two additional scales are diagnostically significant: Scale 1A (Dominant), with a score of 8, and Scale 7 (Reticent), with a score of 5 — both in the present (5–9) range. Scale 4 (Accommodating) approaches diagnostic significance. (The score of 12 on Scale 9 is not diagnostically critical; the MIDC manual specifies a clinical significance threshold of 20 for Scales 9 and 0, versus 5 for Scales 1–8.)

In terms of MIDC scale gradation (see Table 2 and Figure 1) criteria, Al Gore was classified as an amalgam of the Conscientious/dutiful and Retiring/aloof personality patterns, with subsidiary features of the Dominant/asserting and Reticent/circumspect patterns.10 Based on the cut-off score guidelines provided in the MIDC manual, Gore’s scale elevations (see Figure 1) are within normal limits, though Scale 6 (Conscientious) and Scale 8 (Retiring) are moderately elevated, in the prominent range. The very prominent elevation of Scale 6 may be cause for concern in that it approaches the mildly dysfunctional Conscientious/compulsive range of profile elevation.

Comparative Scale Elevations: George W. Bush and Al Gore

Direct between-subject comparison of profiles may be misleading when there is a large disparity in the number of items endorsed for the respective subjects. This may be true in the present instance, where 34 (20%; see Table 3) of the 170 MIDC items (full-scale raw score = 46; see Table 4) were endorsed for Bush, and 43 (25%; see Table 3) for Gore (full-scale raw score = 72; see Table 4). Though the disparity is not excessive, it may be judicious to correct for this potential confound with respect to comparative analysis of the profiles.

Ordinarily, simple ratio transformations would satisfactorily resolve this dilemma, but in the present case the situation is complicated by the psychometric qualities of the scoring system; the MIDC scales were constructed to possess the properties of distinguishability and rank order, but

8 In each case the label preceding the slash signifies the basic pattern, whereas the label following the slash indicates the specific scale gradation, or personality type, on the dimensional continuum; see Table 2.

9 See Footnote 7.

10 See Footnote 8. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 15 not those of equal intervals or absolute magnitude (see Immelman, 1999a). To prevent inordinate profile distortion, the scores for the ten scales that constitute Scales 1–8 are expressed as a percentage of the sum of raw scores for the first ten scales only, whereas for Scales 9 and 0, scores are expressed as a percentage of the sum of raw scores for all twelve MIDC scales. The rational basis for this strategy is that Scales 1–8 are psychometrically independent, whereas Scale 9 and 0 patterns are conceptually and psychometrically superimposed on Scale 1–8 patterns (Scale 9 being linked to Scales 1A, 1B, 2, and 6; Scale 0 to Scales 3, 4, 5A, and 5B). Comparative scale elevations for Bush and Gore are expressed by the ratio-transformed (RT%) scores displayed in Table 4. The bidimensional display yielded by plotting the ratio-transformed scores for the two highest scale elevations for each subject, depicted in Figures 2 and 3, provides a parsimonious heuristic framework for comparing the subjects in terms of their central, most distinctive personality patterns only.

0.50 Bush 0.45 Gore 0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

Outgoing 0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Dominant

Figure 2. Relative locations of George W. Bush and Al Gore in two-dimensional space defined by ratio- transformed scores for Bush’s primary and secondary MIDC elevations.

16 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

0.50 Bush 0.45 Gore 0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20 Conscientious 0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Retiring

Figure 3. Relative locations of Al Gore and George W. Bush in two-dimensional space defined by ratio- transformed scores for Gore’s primary and secondary MIDC elevations.

Discussion

The discussion of the results examines the MIDC scale elevations of George W. Bush and Al Gore from the perspective of Millon’s (1994a, 1996; Millon & Davis, 2000) model of personality, supplemented by the theoretically congruent portraits of Oldham and Morris (1995) and Strack (1997). The discussion concludes with a theoretically integrative comparative analysis of the personality-based leadership qualities of Bush and Gore.

George W. Bush

With his elevated Scale 3, George W. Bush emerged from the assessment as a predominantly gregarious type, an adaptive, slightly exaggerated variant of the Outgoing pattern. In interpreting Bush’s profile, due consideration also must be given to his concurrent elevation on Scale 1A, which modulates his Outgoing pattern. Specifically, his loading on this scale classifies Bush as a controlling type, an adaptive, somewhat exaggerated variant of the Dominant pattern. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 17

Scale 3: The Outgoing Pattern

The Outgoing pattern, as do all personality patterns, occurs on a continuum ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are warm, congenial personalities. Slightly exaggerated Outgoing features occur in sociable, gregarious personalities such as President Bill Clinton (see Immelman, 1998a). And in its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form, extraversion manifests itself in impulsive, self-centered, overdramatizing, histrionic behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder.

Normal, adaptive variants of the Outgoing pattern (i.e., congenial and gregarious types) correspond to Oldham and Morris’s (1995) Dramatic style (which overemphasizes the theatrical aspects of this personality pattern rather than its more typical features of sociability), Strack’s (1997) sociable style, and Millon’s (1994a) Outgoing pattern. It bears some similarity to Leary’s (1957) cooperative–overconventional continuum. Millon’s Outgoing pattern is highly correlated with the “Big Five” Extraversion factor, moderately correlated with its Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience factors, has a moderate negative correlation with its Neuroticism factor, and is uncorrelated with its Agreeableness factor (see Millon, 1994a, p. 82). In combination with the Ambitious pattern (Scale 2) — which is modestly elevated in the case of Bush — the Outgoing pattern bears some resemblance to Simonton’s (1988) charismatic presidential style; and in combination with the Accommodating pattern (Scale 4) — also modestly elevated in Bush’s profile — with Simonton’s interpersonal style. Millon (1994a)11 summarizes the Outgoing pattern as follows:

At the most extreme levels [not true for Bush] of the Outgoing pole are persons characterized by features similar to the DSM’s histrionic personality. At less extreme levels [consistent with Bush’s profile], gregarious persons go out of their way to be popular with others, have confidence in their social abilities, feel they can readily influence and charm others, and possess a personal style that makes people like them. Most enjoy engaging in social activities, and like meeting new people and learning about their lives. Talkative, lively, socially clever, they are often dramatic attention-getters who thrive on being the center of social events. Many become easily bored, especially when faced with repetitive and mundane tasks. Often characterized by intense and shifting moods, gregarious types are sometimes viewed as fickle and excitable. On the other hand, their enthusiasms often prove effective in energizing and motivating others. Inclined to be facile and enterprising, outgoing people may be highly skilled at manipulating others to meet their needs. (pp. 31–32)

Strack (1997) provides the following portrait of the normal prototype of the Outgoing pattern, based on Millon’s theory, empirical findings from studies correlating his Personality Adjective Check List (PACL; 1991) scales with other measures, and clinical experience with the instrument:

Like cooperative [Accommodating] personalities, sociable [Outgoing] individuals have a need for attention and approval. However, unlike cooperative persons sociable types take the initiative in assuring their reinforcements by being center-stage. They are characterized by an outgoing, talkative, and extraverted style of behavior and tend to be lively, dramatic, and colorful. These people are typically viewed by others as spontaneous, clever, enthusiastic, and vigorous. They can

11 All Millon 1994a citations in this paper refer to the Millon Index of Personality Styles (MIPS). Copyright © 1994 by Dicandrien, Inc. “MIPS” is a registered trademark of The Psychological Corporation. 18 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

be quite sensitive to the needs and wants of others, at least to those aspects that will help them get the attention they seek. Sociable individuals may also be seen as fickle in their attachments. They may have quickly shifting moods and emotions, and may come across as shallow and ungenuine. These persons tend to prefer novelty and excitement, and are bored by ordinary or mundane activities. Like cooperative personalities, sociable individuals seem uncomfortable or deflated when left on their own. Not surprisingly, sociable types often excel in group work environments where they can exercise their showy style. They often do well interacting with the public, may be skilled and adept at rallying or motivating others, and will usually put their best side forward even in difficult circumstances. (From Strack, 1997, p. 489, with minor modifications)

Millon’s (1994a) and Strack’s (1997) descriptions of the outgoing, sociable personality style provide the theoretical underpinnings for what Drew (1994), with reference to Bill Clinton, called “a very personal presidency” (p. 15). Leadership ability may well be impaired in individuals who “become easily bored, especially when faced with repetitive and mundane tasks,” and who are prone to “intense and shifting moods.” These shortcomings must, however, be weighed against the high degree of skill with which these individuals are able to engage their Outgoing talents of “energizing and motivating others,” as affirmed in Bush’s own words in a 1994 interview with Tom Fiedler of the Miami Herald: “When your name is George Bush, with the kind of personality I have, which is a very engaging personality, at least outgoing, in which my job is to sell tickets to baseball games, you’re a public person” (quoted in Minutaglio, 1999, p. 291).

It bears note that Bush’s Outgoing personality features, particularly in combination with his modest loadings on Scale 1B (Dauntless) and Scale 2 (Ambitious), and his low score on Scale 6 (Conscientious), may render him susceptible to errors of judgment by contributing to “neglect of the role demands of political office, low resistance to corrupting influences, and impulsiveness. . . . [as well as] favoring loyalty and friendship over competence-for-the-position in making appointments to high-level public office” (Immelman, 1993, p. 736). However, his extensive connections with the political establishment, his cessation of alcohol use, and the attenuating effect of aging may temper the tendency toward such lapses of judgment.

In the course of the 2000 presidential campaign, much has been made of the so-called “Bush smirk.” Some observers, for example Chris Matthews (2000a, 2000b), host of the CNBC/MSNBC program “Hardball,” have gone so far as to suggest, in effect, that the “smirk” is indicative of narcissistic entitlement, arrogance, or condescension. Personality theory offers a less cynical explanation: Outgoing personalities typically view themselves as charming, affable, and well liked and are confident in their social abilities. In this light Bush’s much-vaunted nonverbal signature most likely signifies little more than his self-assured awareness that he can stand his ground and, if need be, readily charm and influence others. To the extent that the offending facial expression conveys smugness, it is likely not of a primarily narcissistic nature. Narcissistic personalities classically convey an imperturbable, unflappable mood with a coolly unimpressionable demeanor and an insouciant air of nonchalance.

Outgoing pattern, the impulsive pole of the congenial–gregarious–impulsive continuum. The “normalized” (i.e., de-pathologized; cf. Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 238) diagnostic features of the Outgoing pattern are summarized below; nonetheless, some of the designated traits may be attenuated, less pronounced, and more adaptive in the case of George W. Bush.

Expressive behavior. The core diagnostic feature of the expressive acts of Outgoing individuals is sociability; they are typically friendly, engaging, lively, extraverted, and gregarious. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern are predisposed to impulsiveness, intolerant of inactivity and inclined to seek sensation or excitement to prevent boredom; such individuals display a penchant for momentary excitements, fleeting adventures, and short-sighted hedonism. As leaders they tend to lack “gravitas” and may be prone to scandal, predisposed to reckless, imprudent behaviors, and inclined to make spur-of-the-moment decisions without carefully considering alternatives. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 366–367, 371; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Interpersonal conduct. The core diagnostic feature of the interpersonal conduct of Outgoing individuals is demonstrativeness; they are amiable and display their feelings openly. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern tend to be attention seeking, being attentive to popular appeal and actively soliciting praise and approval. They are interpersonally seductive. In a political leadership role, these traits translate into a substantial need for validation, one manifestation of which may be an overreliance on polls as an instrument of policy direction and formulation. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 367–368, 371; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Cognitive style. The core diagnostic feature of the cognitive style of Outgoing individuals is unreflectiveness; they avoid introspective thought and focus on practical, concrete matters. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern tend to be superficial, which is sometimes associated with flightiness in reasoning or thinking. They are not paragons of deep thinking or self-reflection and tend to speak and write in impressionistic generalities; though talkative, they tend to avoid earnest matters and their words may lack detail and substance. More rarely, these individuals are relatively poor integrators of experience, which results in scattered learning; they may be slow to learn from their mistakes and prone to thoughtless judgments. Politically speaking, more extreme forms of the Outgoing pattern may result in lapses of judgment and flawed decision making. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 368–369, 371; Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 236)

Mood/Temperament. The core diagnostic feature of the temperamental disposition and prevailing mood of Outgoing individuals is emotional expressiveness; they are animated, uninhibited, spirited and lively, and affectively responsive. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern are quite changeable; though generally lighthearted, they tend to be variable and moody with occasional displays of short-lived and superficial emotions. Leaders with this personality pattern are skilled at staying in touch with public sentiments, but may be mercurial, volatile, or capricious, prone to periodic emotional outbursts, and easily angered or bored. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 370–371)

Self-image. The core diagnostic feature of the self-image of Outgoing individuals is their view of themselves as being socially desirable, well liked, and charming. More exaggerated 20 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore variants of the Outgoing pattern tend to perceive themselves as stimulating, popular, and gregarious. In extreme cases, the self-perception of Outgoing individuals has a hedonistic character, epitomized by a self-indulgent image of attracting acquaintances through pursuit of a busy, pleasure-oriented lifestyle. Given their appealing self-image, Outgoing personalities are confident in their social abilities. In politics, Outgoing personalities, more than any other character types, are political animals strongly attracted to the lure of campaigning. They thrive on the validation of self offered by adulating crowds and the frenetic, connect-with-people activity of whistlestop tours, political rallies, and town meetings. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 369, 371; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Regulatory mechanisms. The core diagnostic feature of the regulatory (i.e., ego-defense) mechanisms of Outgoing individuals is self-distraction; their preferred stress-management strategy is to engage in relatively mindless activities — for example, games, physical diversions, or other forms of amusement or entertainment. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern may employ the defense mechanism of dissociation (sometimes referred to as “compartmentalization” by political commentators, though technically a misnomer) to cope with conflict and anxiety. Whereas healthy self-distraction is generally adaptive in coping with the stress of high-level political leadership, some of its political implications may be troubling — including a leader’s failure to face up to unpleasant or dissonant thoughts, feelings, and actions, which may be compounded by cosmetic image-making as revealed in a succession of socially attractive but changing facades. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 370)

Object representations. The core diagnostic feature of the object representations of Outgoing individuals is shallowness. Outgoing personalities characteristically seek stimulation, attention, and excitement, presumably to fill an inner void. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern may lack a core identity apart from others, and must draw sustenance and validation from those around them. These individuals thrive on the thrill of the political campaign, and in office may not be entirely averse to instigating a crisis. Thus, although generally conflict averse, they may engage in brinkmanship to force a desired outcome. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 369)

Morphologic organization. The core diagnostic feature of the morphologic organization of Outgoing individuals is exteroceptiveness; they tend to focus on external matters and the here- and-now, being neither introspective nor dwelling excessively on the past, presumably to blot out awareness of a relatively insubstantial inner self. More exaggerated variants of the Outgoing pattern tend to have a disjointed, loosely knit and haphazard morphological structure that contributes to a disconnection of thoughts, feelings, and actions; their internal controls are relatively scattered and unintegrated, with ad hoc methods for restraining impulses, coordinating defenses, and resolving conflicts. The personal political style of these individuals, hypothetically, may have a similar quality, with ad hoc strategies sometimes displacing the disciplined pursuit of carefully formulated policy objectives. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 370)

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 21

Scale 1A: The Dominant Pattern

Few people exhibit personality patterns in “pure” or prototypal form; more often, individual personalities represent a blend of two or more prevailing orientations. As noted earlier, Bush’s secondary elevation on Scale 1A (Dominant) modulates his primary Outgoing pattern. Bush’s loading on Scale 1A classifies him as a controlling type, an adaptive, slightly exaggerated variant of the Dominant pattern.

Normal, adaptive variants of the Dominant pattern (i.e., asserting and controlling types) correspond to Oldham and Morris’s (1995) Aggressive style, Strack’s (1997) forceful style, Millon’s (1994a) Controlling pattern, and Leary’s (1957) managerial–autocratic continuum. Millon’s Controlling pattern is positively correlated with the “Big Five” Conscientiousness factor, has a more modest positive correlation with its Extraversion factor, is negatively correlated with its Agreeableness and Neuroticism factors, and is uncorrelated with its Openness to Experience factor (see Millon, 1994a, p. 82). Thus, these individuals — though controlling and somewhat disagreeable — tend to be emotionally stable and conscientious. In combination with the Conscientious and Contentious patterns, an elevated Dominant pattern points to Simonton’s (1988) deliberative presidential style; however, Bush obtained very low scores on both of these scales, suggesting a less studied, more spontaneous, free-wheeling — possibly impatient or impulsive — leadership style. According to Millon (1994a), Controlling (i.e., Dominant) individuals

enjoy the power to direct and intimidate others, and to evoke obedience and respect from them. They tend to be tough and unsentimental, as well as gain satisfaction in actions that dictate and manipulate the lives of others. Although many sublimate their power-oriented tendencies in publicly approved roles and vocations, these inclinations become evident in occasional intransigence, stubbornness, and coercive behaviors. Despite these periodic negative expressions, controlling [dominant] types typically make effective leaders, being talented in supervising and persuading others to work for the achievement of common goals. (p. 34)

Caution should be exercised in applying Millon’s description of the Controlling pattern to Bush, given that the Dominant pattern is not his primary orientation. This caveat also holds for Oldham and Morris’s (1995) portrait of the Aggressive personality, which supplements Millon’s description:

While others may aspire to leadership, Aggressive [Dominant] men and women move instinctively to the helm. They are born to assume command as surely as is the top dog in the pack. Theirs is a strong, forceful personality style, more inherently powerful than any of the others. They can undertake huge responsibilities without fear of failure. They wield power with ease. They never back away from a fight. They compete with the supreme confidence of champions. . . . When put to the service of the greater good, the Aggressive [Dominant] personality style can inspire a man or woman to great leadership, especially in times of crisis. (p. 345)

Finally, Strack (1997) provides the following portrait of the normal prototype of the Dominant pattern, aspects of which can be expected to modify Bush’s primary Outgoing pattern:

Like confident [Ambitious] persons, forceful [Dominant] individuals can be identified by an inclination to turn toward the self as the primary source of gratification. However, instead of the confident [Ambitious] personality’s internalized sense of self-importance, forceful [Dominant] 22 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

people seem driven to prove their worthiness. They are characterized by an assertive, dominant, and tough-minded personal style. They tend to be strong-willed, ambitious, competitive, and self- determined. Feeling that the world is a harsh place where exploitiveness is needed to assure success, forceful [Dominant] individuals are frequently gruff and insensitive in dealing with others. In contrast to their preferred, outwardly powerful appearance, these individuals may feel inwardly insecure and be afraid of letting down their guard. In work settings, these personalities are often driven to excel. They work hard to achieve their goals, are competitive, and do well where they can take control or work independently. In supervisory or leadership positions these persons usually take charge and see to it that a job gets done. However, they often need to temper an inclination to demand as much of others as they do of themselves. (From Strack, 1997, p. 490, with minor modifications)

Millon’s (1994a), Oldham and Morris’s (1995), and Strack’s (1997) descriptions of the controlling, aggressive, forceful personality style are theoretically congruent with Minutaglio’s (1999) contention that George W. Bush “loved it when author Richard Ben Cramer [in his 1993 book, What It Takes] had described him as an ass-kicking foot soldier, a quick-witted spy, the ‘Roman candle’ in the family” (p. 311).

As noted earlier, Millon’s personality patterns have predictable, reliable psychological indicators (expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, mood/temperament, self- image, regulatory mechanisms, object representations, and morphologic organization). To reiterate, Millon’s (1996) attribute domains accentuate the maladaptive range of the personality patterns in his taxonomy — in the case of the Dominant pattern, the aggressive pole of the asserting–controlling–aggressive continuum. The “normalized” (i.e., de-pathologized; cf. Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 515) diagnostic features of the Dominant pattern are summarized below; nonetheless, some of the designated traits may be attenuated, less pronounced, and more adaptive in the case of George W. Bush. Furthermore, it must be stressed that this pattern plays a secondary rather than central, defining role in Bush’s political personality. Thus, clinical features of the more exaggerated variants of the Dominant pattern in all likelihood are absent in the case of Bush, particularly those in the domains of regulatory mechanisms, object relations, and morphologic organization.

Expressive behavior. The core diagnostic feature of the expressive acts of Dominant individuals is assertiveness; they are tough, strong-willed, outspoken, and unsentimental. More exaggerated variants of the Dominant pattern are characteristically forceful; they are controlling and at times overbearing, their power-oriented tendencies being evident in occasional intransigence, stubbornness, and coercive behaviors. When they feel strongly about something, these individuals can be quite blunt, brusque, and impatient, with sudden, abrupt outbursts of an unwarranted or precipitous nature. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 483, 487)

Interpersonal conduct. The core diagnostic feature of the interpersonal conduct of Dominant individuals is a commanding presence; they are powerful, authoritative, directive, and persuasive. More exaggerated variants of the Dominant pattern are characteristically intimidating; they tend to be abrasive, contentious, coercive, and combative, often dictate to others, and are willing to humiliate others to evoke compliance. Their strategy of assertion and dominance has an important instrumental purpose in interpersonal relations, as most people “are Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 23 intimidated by hostility, sarcasm, criticism, and threats.”12 Thus, these personalities are adept at having their way by frightening others into respect and submission. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 484; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

Cognitive style. The core diagnostic feature of the cognitive style of Dominant individuals is its opinionated nature; they are outspoken, emphatic, and adamant, holding strong beliefs that they vigorously defend. More exaggerated variants of the Dominant pattern tend to be dogmatic, inflexible and closed-minded, lacking in objectivity and clinging obstinately to preconceived ideas, beliefs, and values. Nonetheless, Dominant personalities “are finely attuned to the subtle elements of human interaction” and “keenly aware of the moods and feelings of others,” skilled at using others’ foibles and sensitivities to manipulate them for their own purposes. More extreme variants of this pattern are quick to turn another’s perceived weaknesses to their own advantage by upsetting the other’s equilibrium. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 484–485; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

Mood/temperament. The core diagnostic feature of the characteristic mood and temperament of Dominant individuals is irritability; they have an excitable temper that they may at times find difficult to control. More exaggerated variants of the Dominant pattern tend to be cold and unfriendly, are disinclined to experience and express tender feelings, and have a volatile temper that flares readily into contentious argument and physical belligerence. All variants of this pattern are prone to anger and to a greater or lesser extent “deficient in the capacity to share tender feelings, to experience genuine affection and love for another or to empathize with their needs.” (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 486; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

Self-image. The core diagnostic feature of the self-image of Dominant individuals is their view of themselves as assertive; they perceive themselves as tough, forthright, unsentimental, and bold. More exaggerated variants of the Dominant pattern recognize their fundamentally competitive nature; they are strong-willed, energetic, and commanding, and may take pride in describing themselves as realistically hardheaded. Though more extreme variants may enhance their sense of self by overvaluing aspects of themselves that present a pugnacious, domineering, and power-oriented image, it is rare for these personalities to acknowledge malicious or vindictive motives. Thus, hostile behavior on their part is typically framed in prosocial terms. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 485; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

Regulatory mechanisms. The core diagnostic feature of the regulatory (i.e., ego-defense) mechanisms of highly Dominant individuals is isolation; they can detached themselves emotionally from the impact of their aggressive acts upon others. In some situations — politics being a case in point — these personalities may “have learned that there are times when it is best to restrain and transmute” their more aggressive thoughts and feelings. Thus, they may “soften

12 The domain of interpersonal conduct offers an interesting illustration of the interaction between Bush’s Dominant and Outgoing orientations. Outgoing personalities seek personal approval and validation, and they may do so in a manipulative, seductive manner. Dominant personalities, on the other hand, strive to exert dominance and control. Bush, with his well-documented habit of giving people nicknames, has apparently devised a strategy of asserting his dominance in a playful, relatively nonthreatening manner. In this context, it is noteworthy that Bush tolerates the moniker “Junior” on the part of only a select few in his inner circle (see Minutaglio, 1999, p. 260). 24 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore and redirect” their hostility, typically by employing the mechanisms of rationalization, sublimation, and projection, all of which lend themselves in some fashion to finding plausible and socially acceptable excuses for less than admirable impulses and actions. Thus, blunt directness may be “rationalized as signifying frankness and honesty, a lack of hypocrisy, and a willingness to face issues head on.” On the longer term, socially sanctioned resolution (i.e., sublimation) of hostile urges is seen in the competitive occupations to which these aggressive personalities gravitate. Finally, these personalities may preempt “the disapproval they anticipate from others by projecting their hostility onto them,” thereby justifying their aggressive actions as mere counteraction to unjust persecution. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 485–486)

Object representations. The core diagnostic feature of the internalized object representations of highly Dominant individuals is their pernicious nature. Characteristically, “there is a marked paucity of tender and sentimental objects, and an underdevelopment of images that activate feelings of shame or guilt.” These dynamics undergird a “jungle philosophy of life” where the only perceived recourse “is to act in a bold, critical, assertive, and ruthless manner.” Of particular relevance to politics is the “harsh and antihumanistic dispositions” of these personalities: “Some are adept at pointing out the hypocrisy and ineffectuality of so-called do- gooders. They rail against the devastating consequences of international appeasement. They justify their toughness and cunning by pointing to the hostile and exploitative behavior of others. . . . To them, the only way to survive in this world is to dominate and control it.” (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 485)

Morphologic organization. The core diagnostic feature of the morphologic organization of highly Dominant individuals is eruptiveness; powerful energies “are so forceful that they periodically overwhelm” these personalities’ otherwise adequate modulating controls, defense operations, and expressive channels, resulting in the harsh behavior commonly seen in these personalities. This tendency is exacerbated by the unrestrained expression of “intense and explosive emotions” stemming from early life experiences. Moreover, these personalities “dread the thought of being vulnerable, of being deceived, and of being humiliated.” Viewing people as basically ruthless, these personalities are driven to gain power over others, to dominate them and outmaneuver or outfox them at their own game. Personal feelings are regarded as “a sign of weakness” and dismissed as mere maudlin sentimentality. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 486)

Scale 1B: The Dauntless Pattern

In view of questions raised during his presidential campaign about Bush’s personal conduct as a young adult, his modest elevation on Scale 1B (Dauntless), with a diagnostically significant score of 5, warrants brief comment. Bush’s scale elevation meets the minimum criterion for identifying the presence of a Dauntless/adventurous element in his overall personality configuration. Normal, adaptive variants of the Dauntless pattern (i.e., adventurous and dissenting types) correspond to Oldham and Morris’s (1995) Adventurous style, Millon’s (1994a) Dissenting pattern, and the low pole of Simonton’s (1988) interpersonal presidential style. Millon’s Dissenting pattern is positively correlated with the “Big Five” Neuroticism factor, is negatively correlated with its Agreeableness factor, has a more modest negative correlation with its Conscientiousness factor, and is uncorrelated with its Extraversion and Openness to Experience factors (see Millon, 1994a, p. 82). Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 25

According to Oldham and Morris (1995, pp. 227–228), the following eight traits and behaviors are reliable clues to the presence of an adventurous style:

1. Nonconformity. Live by their own internal code of values; not strongly influenced by the norms of society. 2. Challenge. Routinely engage in high-risk activities. 3. Mutual independence. Not overly concerned about others; expect each individual to be responsible for him- or herself. 4. Persuasiveness. “Silver-tongued” charmers talented in the art of social influence. 5. Wanderlust. Like to keep moving; live by their talents, skills, ingenuity, and wits. 6. Wild oats. History of childhood and adolescent mischief and hell-raising. 7. True grit. Courageous, physically bold, and tough. 8. No regrets. Live in the present; do not feel guilty about the past or anxious about the future.

It should be noted that Adventurous (Oldham & Morris, 1995) and Dissenting (Millon, 1994a) personalities are adaptive variants of antisocial personality disorder. Perhaps by dint of more favorable socialization experiences these more adaptive styles express themselves “in behaviors that are minimally obtrusive, especially when manifested in sublimated forms, such as independence strivings, ambition, competition, risk-taking, and adventuresomeness” (Millon, 1996, p. 449). Apparent political prototypes of the Dauntless pattern in contemporary American politics are Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura (see Immelman, 1999c) and — to a lesser degree — Arizona senator John McCain (see Immelman, Illies, Kuzma, & Carlson, 2000).

Millon’s description of this pattern provides the theoretical underpinnings for what Bush himself has variously alluded to as his “nomadic” years (see Romano, 1998) and the “so-called wild, exotic days” of his youth (see Hollandsworth, 1999); indeed, the DSM–IV’s description of antisocial personalities as “excessively opinionated, self-assured, or cocky” people with “a glib, superficial charm” (APA, 1994, p. 646) does not seem too far removed from accounts of the “young and irresponsible” (see Minutaglio, 1999, p. 320) Bush in his twenties.

It must be emphasized, however, that antisocial-spectrum personality patterns commonly become less pervasive, intrusive, and maladaptive by early middle age. According to DSM–IV, “Antisocial Personality Disorder has a chronic course but may become less evident or remit as the individual grows older, particularly in the fourth decade of life” (APA, 1994, p. 648). The conventional wisdom is that George W. Bush’s “so-called wild, exotic days” ended the day after his 40th birthday when he quit drinking and began to turn his life around. Of course, there is no way of determining whether this is diagnostically significant or sheer coincidence.

Millon (1996), in examining the developmental background of so-called “socially sublimated antisocials” (p. 462), asserts that their experiential history is often characterized by secondary status in the family. He writes:

It is not only in socially underprivileged families or underclass communities that we see the emergence of antisocial individuals. The key problem for all has been their failure to experience the feeling of being treated fairly and having been viewed as a person/child of value in the family context. Such situations occur in many middle- and upper-middle class families. Here, parents 26 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

may have given special attention to another sibling who was admired and highly esteemed, at least in the eyes of the “deprived” youngster. (p. 462)

The circumstances surrounding the death of his three-year-old sister Robin when George was seven, younger brother Jeb’s early achievements, and the unspoken burden of being the standard bearer of the Bush legacy may all have played a part in the emergence of these — admittedly speculative — dynamics. Verhovek (1998), for example, writes that young George “was a mischievous boy with a passion for sports, especially baseball, and a penchant for wisecracks that may well have its origins in a family tragedy. . . . [B]oth of his parents told friends that George seemed to develop a joking, bantering style in a determined bid to lift them from their grief” (p. 57). And Colloff (1999) explains, “During the seven months that Robin battled the disease at a New York hospital, Barbara Bush stayed at her bedside; George Bush . . . shuttled back and forth between Midland and New York. When he was gone, George W. and his baby brother Jeb were left in the care of family friends” (p. 141).

With reference to Jeb’s favored status in the Bush family and the burden of first-born family status, Burka (1999) writes:

[George W. Bush] will inevitably be compared to his father. . . . They spent quality time together . . . but well into George W.’s adulthood, their relationship was marked by the competitive issues that often arise between fathers and firstborn sons. . . . Perhaps the source of the tension lies in the status within the family of brother Jeb, seven years his junior . . . , who was regarded as the smart one, while George was the smart-alecky one. (p. 115)

There can be little doubt, however, that the life course that George W.’s parents charted for him — following in his father’s footsteps to Andover, Yale and the oil fields of Texas, and his prominent role in his father’s political campaigns — also bestowed special privileges on the “First Son,” scion of the Bush political dynasty.

A Composite Personality Portrait of George W. Bush

George W. Bush’s overall personality configuration, with his primary elevation on Scale 3 (Outgoing), his secondary elevation on Scale 1A (Dominant), his less prominent elevation on Scale 1B (Dauntless), and near-significant elevations on Scale 2 (Ambitious) and Scale 4 (Accommodating) suggests the following composite personality portrait, drawn from the work of Millon:

. Characteristically engaging, energetic, and optimistic; driven by a need for excitement and stimulation and willing to take risks; full of ideas, though tending to be a superficial thinker; likely to start many projects but inconsistent in following through, compensating with a natural salesperson’s ability to persuade others to join in getting things done (adapted from Millon & Davis, 2000, pp. 111, 242) . Assertive, realistic, and competitive; enjoys the power to direct others and to evoke respect, often asserting control under the guise of good-natured fun and teasing; authoritative without being authoritarian, tending to use position power for the greater good; creates rules and expects subordinates to follow them, though within reasonable limits (adapted from Millon & Davis, 2000, pp. 514–515)

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 27

. Disarmingly affable and charming, making a good first impression; possesses a keen ability to read others’ motives and desires, and willing to scheme in calculated fashion to realize personal ambitions (adapted from Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 243) . Congenial, cordial, and agreeable; generally benevolent and approval-seeking, preferring to avoid conflict without being conflict averse; anti-introspective and unwilling to acknowledge disturbing emotions, denying personal difficulties or covering inner conflicts with self- distraction (adapted from Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 211)

Al Gore

With his elevated Scale 6, Al Gore emerged from the assessment as a predominantly dutiful type, an adaptive, slightly exaggerated variant of the Conscientious pattern. In interpreting Gore’s profile, due consideration also must be given to his concurrent elevation on Scale 8, which modulates his Conscientious pattern. Specifically, the loading on this scale classifies Gore as an aloof type, an adaptive, normal variant of the Retiring pattern. The identification of this personality composite with respect to Gore (Immelman 1998b) is accurately reflected in the quote — attributed to “a long-serving former member” of Gore’s staff — with which Gore biographer Bob Zelnick (1999) chose to end his book: “[H]e is a private person. He is deadly serious. He’s not a grandstander. He doesn’t perform. He’s in love with work” (p. 374).

Scale 6: The Conscientious Pattern

The Conscientious pattern, as do all personality patterns, occurs on a continuum ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are earnest, courteous, respectful personalities. Slightly exaggerated Conscientious features occur in dependable, dutiful, principled personalities such as President Woodrow Wilson. And in its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form, conscientiousness manifests itself in moralistic, self-righteous, punctilious, compulsive behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosis of obsessive- compulsive personality disorder.

Normal, adaptive variants of the Conscientious pattern (i.e., respectful and dutiful types) correspond to Oldham and Morris’s (1995) Conscientious style, Millon’s (1994a) Conforming pattern, Strack’s (1997) respectful style, and Leary’s (1957) responsible–hypernormal continuum. Millon’s Conforming pattern is correlated with the “Big Five” Conscientiousness factor, has a modest positive correlation with its Extraversion factor, a modest negative correlation with its Neuroticism factor, and is uncorrelated with its Agreeableness and Openness to Experience factors (see Millon, 1994a, p. 82). Adaptive variants of the Conscientious pattern have “a well-disciplined and organized lifestyle that enables individuals to function efficiently and successfully in most of their endeavors,” in contrast to “the driven, tense, and rigid adherence to external demands and to a perfectionism that typifies the disordered [compulsive] state.” They “demonstrate an unusual degree of integrity, adhering as firmly as they can to society’s ethics and morals” (Millon, 1996, pp. 518–519). As stated by Oldham and Morris (1995):

Conscientious-style people . . . [have] strong moral principle[s] and absolute certainty, and they won’t rest until the job is done and done right. They are loyal to their families, their causes, and their superiors. Hard work is a hallmark of this personality style; Conscientious types achieve. . . . 28 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

The Conscientious personality style flourishes within cultures . . . in which the work ethic thrives. Conscientious traits . . . [include] hard work, prudence, conventionality. (p. 62)

Being principled, scrupulous, and meticulous, Conscientious individuals “tend to follow standards from which they hesitate to deviate, attempt to act in an objective and rational manner, and decide matters in terms of what they believe is right.” They are often religious, and maintaining their integrity “ranks high among their goals” while “voicing moral values gives them a deep sense of satisfaction.” The major limitations of this personality style are (a) its “superrationality,” leading to a “devaluation of emotion [which] tends to preclude relativistic judgments and subjective preferences”; and (b) a predilection for “seeing complex matters in black and white, good and bad, or right or wrong terms” (Millon, 1996, p. 519). Millon (1994a) summarizes the Conscientious pattern (which he labels Conforming) as follows:

[Conscientious individuals possess] traits not unlike Leary’s [1957] responsible–hypernormal personality, with its ideal of proper, conventional, orderly, and perfectionistic behavior, as well as bearing a similarity to Factor III of the Big-Five, termed Conscientiousness. Conformers are notably respectful of tradition and authority, and act in a reasonable, proper, and conscientious way. They do their best to uphold conventional rules and standards, following given regulations closely, and tend to be judgmental of those who do not. Well-organized and reliable, prudent and restrained, they may appear to be overly self-controlled, formal and inflexible in their relationships, intolerant of deviance, and unbending in their adherence to social proprieties. Diligent about their responsibilities, they dislike having their work pile up, worry about finishing things, and come across to others as highly dependable and industrious. (p. 33)

Strack (1997) provides the following portrait of the normal prototype of the Conscientious pattern, based on Millon’s theory, empirical findings from studies correlating his Personality Adjective Check List (PACL; 1991) scales with other measures, and clinical experience with the instrument:

Responsible, industrious, and respectful of authority, these individuals tend to be conforming and work hard to uphold rules and regulations. They have a need for order and are typically conventional in their interests. These individuals can be rule abiding to a fault, however, and may be perfectionistic, inflexible, and judgmental. A formal interpersonal style and notable constriction of affect can make some respectful persons seem cold, aloof, and withholding. Underneath their social propriety there is often a fear of disapproval and rejection, or a sense of guilt over perceived shortcomings. Indecisiveness and an inability to take charge may be evident in some of these persons due to a fear of being wrong. However, among co-workers and friends, respectful [Conscientious] personalities are best known for being well organized, reliable, and diligent. They have a strong sense of duty and loyalty, are cooperative in group efforts, show persistence even in difficult circumstances, and work well under supervision. (From Strack, 1997, p. 490, with minor modifications)

Oldham and Morris’s (1995), Millon’s (1994a), and Strack’s (1997) descriptions of the conscientious, conforming, respectful personality style are consistent with media reports of Vice President Gore’s personal style and public behavior as being disciplined (Pooley & Tumulty, 1997; Turque, 1998); principled (Wells, 1996); meticulous (Breslau, 1998; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997); occasionally fretful or fastidious (Noah, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997; Tumulty, 1997); serious-minded (Pooley & Tumulty, 1997); efficiency-oriented (Wells, 1996); cautious (Borger, 1997; Breslau, 1998; Turque, 1998); dutiful (Wells, 1996); loyal (Breslau, 1998; Pooley, 1998; Shribman, 1996; Turque, 1998; Wells, 1996); reliable (Wells, 1996); stiff (Breslau, 1998; Pooley Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 29

& Tumulty, 1997; Wells, 1996); emotionally inexpressive (Ferguson, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997); morally beyond reproach (Elvin, 1997; Pooley, 1998; Tumulty, 1997; Turque, 1998; Wells, 1996); self-effacing, self-deprecating, ironic, deadpan, or dry in his sense of humor (Borenstein, 1996; Ferguson, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997; Rauber, 1997; Wells, 1996); pointedly reasonable, and occasionally pretentious, ostensibly to mask a hidden self (Berke, 1997; Ferguson, 1997; Noah, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997); periodically pedantic or condescending (Breslau, 1998; Noah, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997; Rich, 1997; Turque, 1998); stingy (Breslau, 1998; Noah, 1998); and sometimes not sufficiently courageous or firm in confronting powerful adversaries (Breslau, 1998; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997).

Given his substantial prior reputation for personal integrity, a somewhat puzzling trend in the course of Gore’s vice presidency, and particularly the 2000 presidential campaign, is the persistence with which Al Gore has been stereotyped by political commentators as a “panderer” and the ferocity with which he has been impugned as a liar by more strident critics (see Zelnick, 1999, pp. 113–114, 306–308 for an account of this trend). Personality theory offers a more charitable rationale: Conscientious personalities typically perceive themselves as industrious, reliable, and efficient, yet are prone to self-doubt or guilt for failing to live up to an ideal. Being prudent, principled, and dutiful, conscientious people are particularly sensitive to charges of impropriety, which is devastating to their righteous sense of self. Similarly, they dread being viewed as irresponsible, slack in their efforts, or wrong, with a corresponding tendency to overvalue aspects of their self-image that signify perfectionism, prudence, and discipline. Al Gore’s sometimes disingenuous overstatement of fact (the “Love Story” flap, the “no controlling legal authority” imbroglio, and his “inventing the Internet” snafu) may conceivably be viewed in this light — and not necessarily as an expression of fundamental mendacity or a fatal flaw of character.

This perspective is echoed in Strack’s (1997) contention with reference to conscientious personalities, that “[u]nderneath their social propriety there is often a fear of disapproval and rejection, or a sense of guilt over perceived shortcomings” (p. 490). In similar vein, to the extent that assertions by Gore’s critics that he lacks leadership are valid, the personality–leadership nexus may well be implicit in Strack’s observation that “[i]ndecisiveness and an inability to take charge may be evident in some of these persons due to a fear of being wrong” (p. 490).

Millon’s personality patterns have predictable, reliable, and — for the most part — observable psychological indicators (expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, mood/temperament, self-image, regulatory mechanisms, object representations, and morphologic organization). Owing to the clinical emphasis of his model, Millon’s (1996) attribute domains accentuate the maladaptive range of the personality patterns in his taxonomy — in the case of the Conscientious pattern, the compulsive pole of the respectful–dutiful–compulsive continuum. The “normalized” (i.e., de-pathologized; cf. Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 175) diagnostic features of the Conscientious pattern are summarized below; nonetheless, some of the designated traits may be attenuated, less pronounced, and more adaptive in the case of Al Gore.

Expressive behavior. The core diagnostic feature of the expressive acts of Conscientious individuals is a sense of duty; they do their best to uphold conventional rules and standards, follow regulations closely, and are responsible, reliable, proper, prudent, punctual, self- 30 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore disciplined, well organized, and restrained. They are meticulous in fulfilling obligations, their conduct is generally beyond reproach, and they typically demonstrate an uncommon degree of integrity. More exaggerated variants of the Conscientious pattern tend toward rigidity; they are typically overcontrolled, orderly, and perfectionistic. Though highly dependable and industrious, they have an air of austerity and serious-mindedness and tend to be stubborn, stingy, and possessive. They are typically scrupulous in matters of morality and ethics, and may strike others as prudish, moralistic, and condescending. They exhibit a certain postural tightness; their movements may be deliberate and dignified and they display a tendency to speak precisely, with clear diction and well-phrased sentences. Emotions are constrained by a regulated, highly structured, and carefully organized lifestyle. Clothing is characteristically formal or proper, and restrained in color and style. Individuals who display the most pronounced variants of this pattern are pedantic, painfully fastidious or fussy, and excessively devoted to work and productivity. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 513–515)

Interpersonal conduct. The core diagnostic feature of the interpersonal conduct of Conscientious individuals is politeness; they are courteous, proper, and dignified. They strongly adhere to social conventions and proprieties and show a preference for polite, formal, and “correct” personal relationships.13 With their strong sense of duty, they feel that they must not let others down or engage in behaviors that might provoke their displeasure. They are loyal to their families, their causes, and their superiors. More exaggerated variants of the Conscientious pattern are uncompromising. They are exacting and demanding in relations with subordinates, insisting that they adhere to personally established rules and methods. In marked contrast, they treat superiors with deference, are obsequious, and may ingratiate themselves, striving to impress authorities with their loyalty, efficiency, and serious-mindedness. In more extreme manifestations of the pattern, supercilious and deprecatory behaviors may be cloaked behind a veil of legalities and regulations, and aggressive intent may be justified by recourse to rules, authorities, or imperatives higher than themselves. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 514–515, 516; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Cognitive style. The core diagnostic feature of the cognitive style of Conscientious individuals is circumspection; they are cautious, prudent, deliberate, systematic, and attentive to detail. Wary of new or untested ideas, they are risk avoidant. More exaggerated variants of the Conscientious pattern are unimaginative; they are methodical, structured, pedestrian, uninspired, or routinized. Perfectionism may interfere with decision making and task completion, and they may have difficulty dealing with new ideas. The most extreme variants of this pattern are constricted; they are mechanical, inflexible, and rigid, constructing the world in terms of rules, regulations, schedules, and hierarchies. Their thinking may be constrained by stubborn adherence to conventional rules and personally formulated schemas, and their equilibrium is easily upset by unfamiliar situations or new ideas, making them excruciatingly indecisive at times. All variants of this pattern are concerned with matters of propriety and efficiency and tend to be rigid about regulations and procedures, though, ironically, all too often getting mired in minor or irrelevant details. They judge others by “objective” standards and time-proven rules of an orderly society

13 Al Gore has attributed his public stiffness and formality to “a vestige of the style of upper Cumberland, Tenn., ‘that emphasizes formalism in public presentation’” (Pooley & Tumulty, 1997, p. 46). A more reasonable explanation is that his dignified bearing is simply the function of a pervasive, central personality orientation — his Conscientious pattern with its proclivity for propriety, formality, and emotional restraint. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 31 and are inclined to disdain frivolity and public displays of emotion, which they view as irresponsible or immature. Though industrious, tidy, meticulous, practical, realistic, and diligent, their thinking may be deficient in flexibility, creativity, and imagination, and lacking in vision. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 515–516; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Mood/temperament. The core diagnostic feature of the characteristic mood and temperament of Conscientious individuals is restraint; they are serious, reasonable, and rarely display strong emotions. More exaggerated variants of the Conscientious pattern are characteristically solemn; they are emotionally controlled, tense, or unrelaxed. The most extreme variants of this pattern are grave; heavy and uptight, they are joyless, grim, and somber, keeping a tight rein on emotions — especially warm and affectionate feelings, though they may occasionally exhibit abrupt, explosive outbursts of anger aimed at subordinates. Because of their dignified, serious-minded, solemn demeanor, all variants of the Conscientious pattern may at times be viewed as grim and cheerless. This is, however, due to disdain for frivolity rather than humorlessness per se; thus, although these individuals often come across as reserved, even stiff, “wooden,” or “heavy,” they may exhibit a dry, self-effacing sense of humor. Few, however, have a lively or ebullient manner; most are rigidly controlled and tight, and their failure to release pent-up energies may predispose them to psychophysiological disorders. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 518; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Self-image. The core diagnostic feature of the self-perception of Conscientious individuals is reliability; they view themselves as dependable, disciplined, responsible, industrious, efficient, and trustworthy. More exaggerated variants of the Conscientious pattern accurately perceive themselves as highly conscientious, even to a fault; they view themselves as scrupulous, meticulous in fulfilling obligations, and loyal, despite often being viewed by others as high minded, overperfectionistic, and fastidious. The most extreme variants of this pattern view themselves as righteous; they overvalue aspects of themselves that exhibit virtue, moral rectitude, discipline, perfection, prudence, and loyalty, and are fearful of error or misjudgment. They are excessively devoted to work, with a corresponding tendency to minimize the importance of recreational or leisure activities. All variants of the Conscientious pattern at times experience self-doubt or guilt for failing to live up to an ideal. Given their strong sense of duty and their view of themselves as reliable, conscientious, or righteous, these individuals are particularly sensitive to charges of impropriety, which may be devastating to their sense of self. Similarly, they dread being viewed as irresponsible, slack in their efforts, or in error, with a corresponding tendency to overvalue aspects of their self-image that signify perfectionism, prudence, and discipline. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 516)

Regulatory mechanisms. The core diagnostic feature of the unconscious regulatory (i.e., ego-defense) mechanisms of Conscientious individuals is reaction formation; they typically display reasonableness when faced with circumstances that would ordinarily be expected to evoke irritation, anger, or dismay. People with more extreme variants of this pattern repeatedly attempt to put a positive spin on their thoughts and behaviors by engaging in public displays of socially commendable actions that may be diametrically opposed to their deeper, forbidden impulses. Conscientious individuals classically employ a greater variety of regulatory mechanisms than other personality patterns, among them identification, sublimation, isolation, and undoing. Concerning the latter, in extreme, compulsive manifestations of the Conscientious 32 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore pattern, perceived failure of these individuals to live up to their own or others’ expectations may give rise to ritualistic acts to annul the evil or wrong they feel they have done, which induces them to seek expiation for their imagined sins and regain the goodwill they fear they have lost. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 516–517)

Object representations. The core diagnostic feature of the internalized object representations of Conscientious individuals is concealment; there is a tendency for only those internalized representations that are socially acceptable, with their corresponding inner affects, memories, and attitudes, to be permitted into conscious awareness or to be expressed. Thus, “personal difficulties and social conflicts anchored to past experiences are defensively denied, kept from conscious awareness, and maintained under the most stringent of controls.” These individuals devalue self-exploration, claiming that it is “antithetical to efficient behavior and that introspection only intrudes on rational thinking and self-control,” or asserting that introspection is indicative of immature self-indulgence and thus anathema to social adaptation. Consequently, highly Conscientious people often lack insight into their motives and feelings. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 516)

Morphologic organization. The core diagnostic feature of the morphological organization of highly Conscientious individuals is compartmentalization: “To keep . . . [contrary] feelings and impulses from affecting one another, and to hold ambivalent images and contradictory attitudes from spilling forth into conscious awareness, the organization of their inner world must be rigidly compartmentalized” in a tightly consolidated system that is clearly partitioned into numerous, distinct, and segregated constellations of drive, memory, and cognition, with few open channels to permit interplay among these components. Thus, a deliberate and well-poised surface quality may belie an inner turmoil. To prevent upsetting the balance they have so carefully wrought throughout their lives, highly Conscientious individuals strive to avoid risk and to operate with complete certainty. Their toughest task, however, is to control their emotions, which they do by extensive use of intrapsychic defenses. Because they usually have a history of exposure to demanding, perfectionistic parents, a potent force behind their tightly structured world is their fear of disapproval. Because their public facade of conformity and propriety often masks an undercurrent of repressed urges toward self-assertion and defiance, they must guard against “detection,” which they achieve through characteristic control mechanisms such as reaction formation, and by favoring the formalistic interpersonal behaviors described in preceding sections. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 517–518)

Scale 8: The Retiring Pattern

Few people exhibit personality patterns in “pure” or prototypal form; more often, individual personalities represent a blend of two or more prevailing orientations. As noted earlier, Gore’s secondary elevation on Scale 8 (Retiring) modulates his primary Conscientious pattern. Gore’s loading on Scale 8 classifies him as an aloof type, an adaptive, slightly exaggerated variant of the Retiring pattern.

Normal, adaptive variants of the Retiring pattern (i.e., reserved and aloof types), characterized by low levels of sociability and companionability (Millon, 1994a, p. 31), correspond to Oldham and Morris’s (1995) Solitary style, Strack’s (1997) introversive style, and Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 33

Millon’s (1994a) Retiring pattern. Millon’s Retiring pattern is negatively correlated with the “Big Five” Extraversion factor, positively correlated with its Neuroticism factor, has modest negative correlations with its Openness to Experience and Agreeableness factors, and is uncorrelated with its Conscientiousness factor (see Millon, 1994a, p. 82). In combination with low elevations on the Outgoing, Ambitious, and Dominant scales — particularly in the presence of a concurrently elevated Conscientious scale — an elevated Retiring pattern runs counter to Simonton’s (1988) conceptualization of the charismatic presidential style. With the exception of a modestly elevated Dominant scale, Gore fits this profile of the uncharismatic leader.

According to Oldham and Morris (1995), Retiring, “solitary-style” individuals are self- contained people without a need for external guidance, admiration, or emotional sustenance. They feel no need to share their experiences and draw their greatest strength and comfort from within. According to Oldham and Morris (1995),

Solitary men and women need no one but themselves. They are unmoved by the madding crowd, liberated from the drive to impress and to please. Solitary people are remarkably free of the emotions and involvements that distract so many others. What they may give up in terms of sentiment and intimacy, however, they may gain in clarity of vision. (p. 275)

Millon (1994a) summarizes the Retiring pattern as follows:

[Retiring individuals] evince few social or group interests. . . . Their needs to give and receive affection and to show feelings tend to be minimal. They are inclined to have few relationships and interpersonal involvements, and do not develop strong ties to other people. They may be seen by others as calm, placid, untroubled, easygoing, and possibly indifferent. Rarely expressing their inner feelings or thoughts to others, they seem most comfortable when left alone. They tend to work in a slow, quiet, and methodical manner, almost always remaining in the background in an undemanding and unobtrusive way. Comfortable working by themselves, they are not easily distracted or bothered by what goes on around them. Being somewhat deficient in the ability to recognize the needs or feelings of others, they may be seen as socially awkward, if not insensitive, as well as lacking in spontaneity and vitality. (p. 31)

Finally, Strack (1997) provides the following portrait of the normal prototype of the Retiring pattern, aspects of which can be expected to modify Gore’s primary Conscientious pattern:

Aloof, introverted, and solitary, these persons usually prefer distant or limited involvement with others and have little interest in social activities, which they find unrewarding. Appearing to others as complacent and untroubled, they are often judged to be easy-going, mild-mannered, quiet, and retiring. They frequently remain in the background of social life and work quietly and unobtrusively at a job. . . . [I]n the workplace these people do well on their own, are typically dependable and reliable, are undemanding, and are seldom bothered by noise or commotion around them. They are often viewed as levelheaded and calm. However, these individuals may appear unaware of, or insensitive to, the feelings and thoughts of others. These characteristics are sometimes interpreted by others as signs of indifference or rejection, but reveal a sincere difficulty in being able to sense others’ moods and needs. Introversive [Retiring] persons can be slow and methodical in demeanor, lack spontaneity and resonance, and be awkward or timid in social or group situations. They frequently view themselves as being simple and unsophisticated, and are usually modest in appraising their own skills and abilities. At the same time, their placid demeanor and ability to weather ups and downs without being ruffled are traits frequently prized by friends, family members, and co-workers. (From Strack, 1997, p. 488, with minor modifications)

34 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Oldham and Morris’s (1995), Millon’s (1994a), and Strack’s (1997) descriptions of the solitary, retiring, introversive personality style are not fully consistent with the image of Gore’s personal style and public behavior portrayed in the media. Although this is to be expected in view of the secondary status of the Retiring pattern in Gore’s overall personality configuration, careful scrutiny does reveal references to qualities associated with the normal range of this pattern, including blandness (Borger, 1997); remoteness (Breslau, 1998); wooden or robotic demeanor (Borenstein, 1996; Breslau, 1998; Ferguson, 1997; Henneberger, 1997); social or political awkwardness, ineptitude, or maladroitness (Borger, 1997; Breslau, 1998; Noah, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997; Rich, 1997; Tumulty, 1997); a disjunction between private and public selves (Ferguson, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997); peculiarity or eccentricity (Elvin, 1997; Noah, 1997); and a penchant for obfuscating messages through the use of abstruse words and ideas or weighing simple ideas down with pretentious language [more closely associated with the Conscientious pattern] or arcane allusions (Borger, 1997; Breslau, 1998; Noah, 1997; Pooley & Tumulty, 1997).

As noted before, Millon’s personality patterns have predictable, reliable psychological indicators (expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, mood/temperament, self- image, regulatory mechanisms, object representations, and morphologic organization). To reiterate, Millon’s (1996) attribute domains accentuate the maladaptive range of the personality patterns in his taxonomy — in the case of the Retiring pattern, the solitary pole of the reserved– aloof–solitary continuum. The “normalized” (i.e., de-pathologized; cf. Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 314) diagnostic features of the Retiring pattern are summarized below; nonetheless, some of the designated traits may be attenuated, less pronounced, and more adaptive in the case of Al Gore. Furthermore, it must be stressed that this pattern plays a secondary rather than central, defining role in Gore’s political personality.14

Expressive behavior. The core diagnostic feature of the expressive acts of Retiring individuals is their reserved nature; they are private, unsociable, introverted, and undemonstrative. More exaggerated variants of the Retiring pattern are characteristically aloof; they express a preference for being alone and are phlegmatic and deficient in expressiveness and spontaneity. They may be unperceptive and undiplomatic. The most extreme variants of this pattern are solitary; they are stoic, stolid, colorless, bland, and detached, with a strong preference for being alone. They are deficient in activation, motoric expressiveness, and spontaneity and are impassive and unmoved, with an unexcited, lifeless quality, lacking in energy and vitality. Their physical movement may be languid, lumbering, or lacking in rhythm, and their speech slow, monotonous, and deficient in affective expressiveness. They rarely “perk up” or respond animatedly to the feelings of others, which may be wrongly perceived as a lack of kindness or compassion. Being underresponsive to stimulation, they are neither quickly provoked to anger nor easily humored, and rarely report feelings of anger or anxiety, sadness or joy. They are often perceived as passive and lacking in enthusiasm, initiative, or vigor, and others may experience them as boring, unanimated, and wooden, if not robotic. Leisure-time preferences tend toward mental activities such as reading or television watching, or low energy-expenditure physical activities such as sketching or Internet surfing. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 230–231)

14 It is theoretically conceivable — even likely — that Gore’s inborn predisposition is toward introversion, but that he was primarily socialized as a conscientious personality. More detailed consideration of this speculation is beyond the scope of the present endeavor. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 35

Interpersonal conduct. The core diagnostic feature of the interpersonal conduct of Retiring individuals is unobtrusiveness; they are private, self-contained, prefer solitary activities, and often fade into the background or go unnoticed. More exaggerated variants of the Retiring pattern are socially disengaged; they are indifferent to others, neither desiring nor enjoying close relationships, and are socially remote and interpersonally detached. The most extreme variants of this pattern are asocial; they are reclusive and unresponsive to the emotions and behaviors of others, exhibiting minimal interest in the lives of others. All variants of the Retiring pattern, where possible, avoid social activities or leadership roles. In mandatory (e.g., work-related) settings, their social communications are expressed in a perfunctory, formal, or impersonal manner. Their primary social motive is to remain interpersonally unattached, but this is a preferred, comfortable state rather than a driving need. When pushed beyond their limits or comfort zone in interpersonal relations, they tend to retreat or withdraw into themselves. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 231; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Cognitive style. The core diagnostic feature of the cognitive style of Retiring individuals is its vagueness; their thoughts are often fuzzy or unclear and communication with others tends to be digressive or unfocused. More exaggerated variants of the Retiring pattern display considerable impoverishment; their ideas tend to be sparse, meager, or infertile and their thought processes obscure. Their communication often loses its purpose or intention, particularly in the social and personal spheres — a tendency that does not necessarily hold true for the intellectual domain. The most extreme variants of this pattern are cognitively barren; they are inarticulate or incomprehensible and deficient across broad spheres of knowledge to a degree that is incompatible with their intellectual level. Their communication is easily derailed, conveyed in a convoluted, complex, or rambling fashion, and complicated by circuitous logic or loss of thought sequence.15 All variants of the Retiring pattern have a diminished capacity to convey articulate or relevant ideas in the realm of interpersonal phenomena. They may grasp grammatical and mathematical symbols with infallible precision yet falter in their comprehension of nonverbal communication, including facial expressions, gestures, and voice timbre — those affect-laden metacommunicative qualities that suffuse the formal structure of communication. A related cognitive trait is their difficulty in attending to, selecting, and regulating perceptions of the socioemotional environment, which may at times result in inaccurate person perception, imbuing their interactions with a socially “tone-deaf” quality. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 231–232; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Mood/temperament. The core diagnostic feature of the characteristic mood and temperament of Retiring individuals is unexcitability; they are emotionally indifferent and phlegmatic, mildly agreeable yet somewhat bland, unemotional and dispassionate, and disinclined to express strong feelings. More exaggerated variants of the Retiring pattern are

15 Zelnick (1999) offers a particularly fascinating account of this tendency in Gore: “Gore would offer a more elaborate if not convoluted explanation for his divinity school decision to the Washington Post: ‘I think a lot of people who have faith in this day and age try to find ways to reconcile their faith with what initially appear to be challenges to that faith. . . . The best known are Galileo, which displaced the Earth as the center of the universe; Darwin, which places us in the animal kingdom; Freud, which displaced consciousness as the sole process of thought; Einstein, which destroyed the concept of solidity and matter. And today the existence of massive starvation and the prospect of nuclear holocaust side by side with the whole idea of progress and civilization makes one question where we are going. But the answer is within ourselves’ ” (pp. 79–80). 36 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore emotionally flat; they are temperamentally impassive, gloomy, or apathetic, rarely display warm or intense feelings, and seem unable to experience most affects — pleasure, sadness, or anger — in any depth. The most extreme variants of this pattern are affectively bleak; they are emotionally inert, numb, and affectless, exhibiting an intrinsic unfeeling, cold, and stark quality. All variants of the Retiring pattern display a deficit in the range and subtlety of emotionally relevant words. Furthermore, they experience only mild or meager affective and erotic needs. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 232–233; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Self-image. The core diagnostic feature of the self-perception of Retiring individuals is its dispassionate quality; they are placid and view themselves as uninvolved and unaffected. More exaggerated variants of the Retiring pattern are complacent; though recognizing themselves as somewhat unfeeling and socially unresponsive or insular, they view themselves as content and satisfied. They are little affected by others, and respond minimally to either praise or criticism. Their limited interest in the lives of others, in the interpersonal domain, is mirrored in the self- domain by low levels of self-awareness or introspection. Reluctant to engage in self-descriptions, they may be vague16 or superficial; if pressed they may describe themselves as ordinary, reflective, uninteresting, or introverted. The most extreme variants of this pattern are affectively impervious; they reveal minimal introspection and awareness of self, seem unconcerned by the emotional and personal implications of everyday social life, and are unresponsive or indifferent to praise or criticism. The apparent lack of candor in self-analysis displayed by most manifestations of the Retiring pattern is not indicative of elusiveness or protective denial, but merely reflects an inherent deficit in pondering social and emotional processes. When adequately formulated and accurately articulated, these personalities will perceive and report themselves as being socially reserved and emotionally distant, somewhat lacking in empathy. With reference to high-level politics, it is noteworthy that the social indifference of Retiring personalities tends to elicit a reciprocal reaction in others, which is likely to be reflected in relatively unenthusiastic public support. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 232; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

Regulatory mechanisms. The core diagnostic feature of the unconscious regulatory (i.e., ego-defense) mechanisms of Retiring individuals is intellectualization. They describe the interpersonal and affective character of their social and emotional experiences and memories in a somewhat impersonal and mechanical manner. They tend to be abstract and perfunctory about their emotional and social lives, and when they do formulate a characterization, they pay primary attention to the more objective and formal aspects of their experiences rather than to the personal and emotional significance of these events. They engage in few complicated unconscious processes; relatively untroubled by intense emotions, all but insensitive to interpersonal relationships, and difficult to arouse and activate, they have little reason to devise complicated intrapsychic defenses and strategies. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 232)

Object representations. The core diagnostic feature of the internalized object representations of highly Retiring individuals is their meagerness; the internalized representations appear to be few in number and diffusely articulated. Relatively little memory experience of past relationships with others imprints strongly in their minds. Low in arousal and emotional reactivity, as well as relatively imperceptive and therefore inclined to blur distinctions, their inner life remains largely

16 See footnote 15.

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 37 homogeneous, undifferentiated, and unarticulated. Because Retiring personalities have less of the natural variety of experiences and dynamic interplay among drives, impulses, and conflicts that compose the minds of most people, they are less able to change and evolve as a consequence of their intrapsychic interactions. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 232)

Morphologic organization. The core diagnostic feature of the morphological organization of highly Retiring individuals is a lack of differentiation. The structural composition of their intrapsychic world is more diffuse and less dynamically active than that of most personality patterns. Relative to other personalities, they have minimal drives to fulfill their needs. The most extreme variants of this pattern demonstrate an inner barrenness, a feeble drive to fulfill needs, and minimal pressures either to defend against or resolve inner conflicts or to deal with external demands. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 232)

Scale 1A: The Dominant Pattern

Al Gore’s moderate elevation on Scale 1A (Dominant), with a diagnostically significant score of 8, warrants brief comment. Gore’s scale elevation exceeds the minimum criterion for identifying the presence of a Dominant/controlling style. Given Gore’s primary Conscientious orientation, this is not surprising; both personality orientations are characterized by strong independence strivings, though Conscientious personalities experience ambivalence, vacillating between obedience and defiance (Millon, 1996, p. 505).

Whereas Gore’s primary elevation on Scale 6 (Conscientious) accounts for his mastery of policy detail and diligence as a debater, his subsidiary Scale 1A elevation helps to explain his toughness as a campaigner. As Fallows (2000) wrote recently: “Over the 1990s, so gradually and methodically that it was not fully appreciated, Gore emerged as America’s most lethally effective practitioner of high-stakes political debate” (p. 33). Fallows points out that in political debate “the contest of ideas is subordinate to the struggle for dominance” (p. 33) and that “[v]ictory requires knowing all the details of the opposition’s proposals. . . . [and] a taste for face-to-face confrontation” (p. 34). In this, Gore is also aided by at least two important character traits associated with his secondary Scale 8 (Retiring) elevation: emotional detachment and low affiliation needs (including the need to be liked).

A description of the Dominant pattern, which provides the theoretical underpinnings for the quintessentially Conscientious Gore’s willingness, as Fallows (2000) puts it, “to bend the rules and stretch the truth if necessary” (p. 34), is presented in the discussion of George W. Bush’s profile. Suffice it to note here that, as stated earlier, normal, adaptive variants of the Dominant pattern (i.e., asserting and controlling types) tend to be emotionally stable and conscientious. In combination with the Conscientious and Contentious patterns, an elevated Dominant pattern points to Simonton’s (1988) deliberative presidential style. Given Gore’s very pronounced elevation on the Conscientious scale in conjunction with evidence of the presence of Contentious traits (Scale 5B = 3), this finding provides useful clues with respect to Gore’s leadership style, which is discussed in the next section.

38 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Leadership and Policy Implications

Simonton has written extensively about historical greatness in general (e.g., 1994) and presidential success in particular (e.g., 1987). James David Barber (1992), focusing more narrowly on the personal qualities of leaders, developed a somewhat overparsimonious 2 × 2 model which has shown some utility in predicting successful (active-positive) and failed (active- negative) presidencies. Unlike Barber’s model the present approach does not lend itself to predicting leadership success or failure on the basis of categorical distinctions. In Millon’s system, each personality pattern has its merits and limitations.

It is possible to coordinate the present findings with alternative models of political personality and complementary theories of political leadership. In this regard, Renshon’s (1996) schema of three core leadership qualities shaped by character — mobilization, orchestration, and consolidation — has already been noted.

Simonton (1988), who has proposed five empirically derived presidential styles (charismatic, interpersonal, deliberative, neurotic, and creative), offers another promising frame of reference. Given the fidelity with which they mirror the currently popular five-factor model, whose correlates with Millon’s personality patterns have been empirically established (Millon, 1994a, p. 82), Simonton’s stylistic dimensions may have considerable heuristic value for establishing links between personality and political leadership. Similarly, Etheredge (1978) and Hermann (1987) have developed personality-based models of foreign policy leadership orientation that can be employed rationally and intuitively to enhance and complement the predictive utility of Millon’s model with respect to leadership performance in the arena of international relations.

George W. Bush

In terms of Renshon’s (1996) three critical components of political leadership, Bush’s outgoing personality will be instrumental in rallying, energizing, and motivating others, and in concert with his considerable political connections will stand him in good stead with respect to mobilization. In the sphere of orchestration, Bush’s relative deficit of personality traits related to conscientiousness (e.g., sustained focus and attention to detail), along with his extravert’s impulsiveness and susceptibility to boredom, may serve as an impediment to presidential performance. Bush is no “policy wonk” — an attribute firmly embedded in his personality — though as governor he has proven himself adept at delegating the more mundane aspects and minutiae of the day-to-day operation of his office. Bush apparently recognizes this quality in himself. In his closing statement at the January 10, 2000 Republican debate in Grand Rapids, Michigan, he said, “I can set agendas; I know how to bring people together to achieve agendas.” This particular leadership skill — rooted in Bush’s dominant personality attributes, including the drive to excel, goal-directedness, and proficiency in taking charge and seeing that the job gets done — will also aid Bush in the arena of consolidation, where it will potentially augment his outgoing, “retail” politician’s skills in consummating his policy objectives.

In addition to his triad of personality-based leadership skills, Renshon (1996) has proposed three elements of character that are key to the psychological assessment of presidential character: Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 39 ambition, character integrity, and relatedness. Although in the domain of character the present approach (based on Millon’s evolutionary theory) supplants Renshon’s more psychoanalytically oriented, self-psychological approach, the following convergences may be noted: Bush’s Millon- based profile suggests that his ambition is rooted in his needs for achievement, affiliation, and recognition, and a drive to realize the high expectations deriving from his status as the “first son” in the next generation of leaders in the Bush political dynasty; that his character integrity (given the hypothesized morphological structure of his Outgoing personality pattern) constitutes a loosely knit, somewhat adventitiously consolidated set of ideals and values, with relatively scattered internal controls and ad hoc methods for restraining impulses, coordinating defenses, and resolving conflicts; and that his interpersonal relatedness is characterized by a tendency to move toward others.

From Simonton’s perspective, Bush’s MIDC elevations on the Outgoing, Dominant, and Ambitious scales imply a “charismatic” leadership style, which conceptually corresponds to the “Big Five” Extraversion factor. According to Simonton (1988), the charismatic leader

typically “finds dealing with the press challenging and enjoyable” . . . [Outgoing], “enjoys the ceremonial aspects of the office” . . . [Outgoing], “is charismatic” . . . [Outgoing, Dominant, Ambitious], “consciously refines his own public image” . . . [Outgoing, Ambitious], “has a flair for the dramatic” . . . [Outgoing], “conveys [a] clear-cut, highly visible personality” . . . [Outgoing], is a “skilled and self-confident negotiator” . . . [Dominant, Ambitious], “uses rhetoric effectively” . . . [Dominant, Ambitious], is a “dynamo of energy and determination” . . . [Outgoing, Dominant, Ambitious], is “characterized by others as a world figure”. . . [Dominant, Ambitious], “keeps in contact with the American public and its moods” . . . [Outgoing], “has [the] ability to maintain popularity” . . . [Outgoing], “exhibits artistry in manipulation” . . . [Dominant, Ambitious], and “views the presidency as a vehicle for self-expression” . . . [Outgoing], but rarely “is shy, awkward in public” [i.e., Outgoing rather than Retiring or Reticent]. (p. 931; associated Millon patterns added)

In addition, the charismatic leader “rarely permits himself to be outflanked” [Dominant, Ambitious], “is innovative in his role as an executive” [Ambitious], “initiates new legislation and programs” [Ambitious], tends not to be “cautious, conservative in action” [i.e., Outgoing rather than Reticent or Conscientious], and rarely “suffers health problems that tend to parallel difficult and critical periods in office” (pp. 930, 931; associated MIDC patterns added).

Bush’s low score on the Conscientious (Scale 6) and Contentious (Scale 5B) patterns, along with his elevations on the Dauntless (Scale 1B) and Outgoing (Scale 4) patterns, suggests that he is not likely to display Simonton’s “deliberative” leadership style, which conceptually corresponds to the “Big Five” Conscientiousness factor. According to Simonton (1988), the deliberative leader

commonly “understands implications of his decisions; exhibits depth of comprehension” . . . , is “able to visualize alternatives and weigh long term consequences” . . . , “keeps himself thoroughly informed; reads briefings, background reports” . . . , is “cautious, conservative in action” . . . , and only infrequently “indulges in emotional outbursts.” (p. 931)

To a lesser extent, the deliberative leader is not inclined “to force decisions to be made prematurely,” “knows his limitations,” does not place “political success over effective policy,” and does not base “decisions on willfulness, nervousness, and egotism” (pp. 930, 931). Based on 40 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore his personality profile, these qualities likely will not be hallmarks of the leadership style of a future President George W. Bush.

Concerning his likely foreign policy orientation as president, Bush’s profile most closely resembles what Etheredge (1978), in his “four-fold speculative typology” of “fundamental personality-based differences in orientation towards America’s preferred operating style and role in the international system” (p. 434), has called the “high-dominance extrovert.” Etheredge contends that high-dominance extraverts (such as the two Presidents Roosevelt, President Kennedy, and President Lyndon B. Johnson) share high-dominance introverts’ tendency “to use military force,”

[b]ut in general . . . are more flexible and pragmatic, more varied in the wide range and scope of major foreign policy initiatives. . . . [In contrast to high-dominance introverts, they] want to lead rather than contain. They advocate change, seek to stir up things globally. . . . [and] are relatively more interested in inclusion [compared with high-dominance introverts, who favor exclusion], initiating programs and institutions for worldwide leadership and cooperative advance on a wide range of issues. (p. 449).

Etheredge’s high-dominance extravert appears to be most similar in character to Hermann’s (1987) “influential” orientation to foreign affairs, with its “[i]nterest in having an impact on other nations’ foreign policy behavior, in playing a leadership role in regional or international affairs” (p. 168); however, Bush’s personality is more consistent with Hermann’s “mediator/integrator” orientation, a foreign policy role orientation motivated by “[c]oncern with reconciling differences between . . . nations, with resolving problems in the international arena” (p. 168). In these leaders’ world view, conflict can be resolved through third-party mediation, prompting a foreign policy “principally diplomatic in nature,” in which the leader engages in “collaborative activities with other nations to foster [a] sense of mutual trust and understanding.” The rhetoric of these leaders “is generally positive in tone.” They use “consensus-building and group maintenance techniques effectively” and have a personal political style characterized by a “willingness to ‘take a back seat’ in the policymaking process, having an impact without seeming to control or interfere with others” (pp. 168–169).

This assessment suggests that Bush may also possess stylistic features of Etheredge’s less dominant, more egalitarian “low-dominance extrovert” (or “conciliator”). According to Etheredge, conciliators such as Presidents Truman and Eisenhower “are not inclined to reshape the world in accordance with a grand vision,” tending “to respond to circumstances with the sympathetic hope that accommodations can be negotiated.” These leaders are “flexible,” “hopeful,” and “open to change” but may lack the consistency and will to consummate their policy objectives” (p. 450).

Al Gore

In terms of Renshon’s (1996) three components of political leadership, Gore’s introverted personality does not serve him well with respect to mobilization. In the sphere of orchestration, Gore’s diligence and attention to detail, associated with his conscientiousness, will stand him in good stead with respect to crafting specific policies. Finally, in the arena of consolidation, Gore’s introversion poses an obstacle to the kinds of coalition building and forging of supportive Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 41 relationships necessary for institutionalizing the results of his policy judgments. Furthermore, the dogmatism and “stiff-necked condescension” (Zelnick, 1999, p. 358) associated with Gore’s extreme conscientiousness may undermine his efforts to consummate his policy objectives.

As for Renshon’s (1996) elements of character, Gore’s profile suggests that his ambition is rooted in a sense of duty; that his character integrity (given the hypothesized morphological structure of his Conscientious personality pattern) is quite well consolidated, yet rather rigidly compartmentalized in a tightly bound system; and that his interpersonal relatedness is marked more by detachment than by a tendency to move toward, away from, or against others.

From Simonton’s perspective, Gore’s elevated score on the MIDC Conscientious scale, in conjunction with his loadings on the Dominant and Contentious scales, suggests a “deliberative” leadership style, which conceptually corresponds to the “Big Five” Conscientiousness factor. According to Simonton (1988), the deliberative leader

To a lesser degree, the deliberative president is not inclined “to force decisions to be made prematurely,” “knows his limitations,” does not place “political success over effective policy,” does not base “decisions on willfulness, nervousness, and egotism,” “supports constitutional government” (suggesting low power orientation), is not “impatient, abrupt in conference,” is a “skilled and self-confident negotiator,” is “characterized by others as a world figure,” and does not view “the presidency as a vehicle for self-expression” (pp. 930, 931).

Gore’s relatively high score on the MIDC Retiring scale, in conjunction with low elevations on the Outgoing and Ambitious scales, hypothetically locates him at the low pole of Simonton’s “charismatic” leadership style, which conceptually corresponds to the “Big Five” Extraversion factor (suggesting that Gore is an introvert). In Simonton’s (1988) terms, a President Gore — not being a charismatic leader — will not

typically find “dealing with the press challenging and enjoyable” . . . , enjoy “the ceremonial aspects of the office” . . . , be “charismatic” . . . , consciously refine “his own public image” . . . , have “a flair for the dramatic” . . . , convey a “clear-cut, highly visible personality” . . . , be a “skilled and self-confident negotiator” . . . , use “rhetoric effectively” . . . , be a “dynamo of energy and determination” . . . , be “characterized by others as a world figure” . . . , keep in contact with the American public and its moods” . . . , have the “ability to maintain popularity” . . . , exhibit “artistry in manipulation” . . . , [or] view “the presidency as a vehicle for self-expression” . . . , [but will be] “shy, awkward in public.” (p. 931)

In addition, as a non-charismatic leader, Gore may permit “himself to be outflanked,” tend to be “cautious, conservative in action,” be less “innovative in his role as an executive,” initiate less “new legislation and [fewer] programs,” and be prone to “health problems that tend to parallel difficult and critical periods in office” (pp. 930, 931).

42 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Turning to foreign policy, the profile for the distinctly introverted, moderately dominant, highly conscientious Gore positions him as a “high-dominance introvert” in Etheredge’s (1978) four-fold typology of personality-based foreign policy role orientations. According to Etheredge, high-dominance introverts, like Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover, are quite willing to use military force, tending

to divide the world, in their thought, between the moral values they think it ought to exhibit and the forces opposed to this vision. They tend to have a strong, almost Manichean, moral component to their views. They tend to be described as stubborn and tenacious. They seek to reshape the world in accordance with their personal vision, and their foreign policies are often characterized by the tenaciousness with which they advance one central idea. . . . [These leaders] seem relatively preoccupied with themes of exclusion, the establishment of institutions or principles to keep potentially disruptive forces in check. (p. 449; italics in original)

Etheredge’s high-dominance introvert appears to be most similar in character to Hermann’s (1987) “expansionist” orientation to foreign affairs. These leaders have a view of the world as being “divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’,” based on a belief system in which conflict is viewed as inherent in the international system.17 This world view prompts a personal political style characterized by a “wariness of others’ motives” and a “directive,” controlling interpersonal orientation, resulting in a foreign policy “focused on issues of security and status,” favoring “low-commitment actions” and espousing “short-term, immediate change in the international arena.” Expansionist leaders “are not averse to using the ‘enemy’ as a scapegoat” and their rhetoric often may be “hostile in tone” (pp. 168–169). Hermann defines the expansionist orientation in terms of motivation to gain “control over more territory, resources, or people” (p. 168). However, her schema was originally formulated in the context of African leaders; in the U.S. context, it seems legitimate to frame this orientation in terms of consolidation — that is, preserving U.S. international dominance (including vital security and economic interests). Domestically, this orientation may well extend to the expansion of government programs, though this is more speculative.

A dimensional reconceptualization of the present findings from a five-factor point of view, informed by correlations among the 10 Millon Index of Personality Styles (MIPS; Millon, 1994a, see pp. 81–82) scales and the five NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985) factors, suggests that Gore is considerably more conscientious than President Clinton, and much less extraverted and open to experience. It is unlikely that a Gore administration will be troubled by the same kinds of ethical questions and lapses of judgment that dogged the Clinton administration.

17 In this regard, the following observation by Zelnick (1999) seems pertinent: “Gore [while serving in Congress] also had a mind that could run in stubborn ideological channels, sometimes impeding the results of his work. He was most motivated when he could play the ‘white knight,’ galloping to the rescue of those victimized by an evil industry or a disdainful bureaucrat, and his solutions were often punitive” (p. 109).

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 43

Should controversy arise, it is improbable that personal misconduct will be at issue; more likely — by virtue of the very prominent Conscientious features in Gore’s profile — heat will be generated by Gore’s inclination to relentlessly advance some central idea18 in which he has an abiding interest (e.g., the environment, government efficiency, high-tech industry). Such single- minded, dogged determination incurs the risk of alienating some constituencies and diverting inordinate energy, attention, and resources from other important endeavors, tasks, and duties.

Retiring aspects of Gore’s personality could further erode his support if a President Gore were to withdraw to the Oval Office, make himself inaccessible to the media, and neglect the important presidential tasks of coalition building and public relations. Regarding the risk of scandal, there will be none of consequence that personally involves the president. Conscientious personalities are much too scrupulous in matters of morality and ethics; in fact, like Woodrow Wilson, they run the risk of being overly moralistic. Furthermore, Al Gore’s Retiring pattern, in stark contrast to the Outgoing-Ambitious pattern exemplified by Bill Clinton (see Immelman, 1998a), is associated with meager affective and erotic needs, which attenuates the risk of sexual misconduct — even without factoring in the potentiating effect of the restraining scruples rooted in his conscientiousness. Ultimately, the preponderance of Conscientious features in Gore’s profile portends that he is unlikely to be a highly imaginative, visionary president or a transformational leader.

Conclusion

George W. Bush’s major personality-based leadership strengths are the important political skills of charisma and interpersonality — a personable, confident, socially responsive, outgoing tendency that will enable him to connect with critical constituencies, mobilize popular support, and retain a following and his self-confidence in the face of adversity. Outgoing leaders characteristically are confident in their social abilities, skilled in the art of social influence, and have a charming, engaging personal style that tends to make people like them and overlook their gaffes and foibles.

Bush’s major personality-based limitations include the propensity for a superficial grasp of complex issues, a predisposition to be easily bored by routine (with the attendant risk of failing to keep himself adequately informed), an inclination to act impulsively without fully appreciating the implications of his decisions or the long-term consequences of his policy initiatives, and a predilection to favor personal connections, friendship, and loyalty over competence in his staffing decisions and appointments — all of which could render a Bush administration relatively vulnerable to errors of judgment.

18 In Chapter 14 of Gore’s Earth in the Balance, on the first twelve pages, there are repeated references to “central organizing principle” (10), “central principle” (2), “organizing principle” (5), and “all-out-effort” (4), with additional references to “single shared goal,” “single overarching goal,” and “overriding objective” (numbers in parentheses refer to the frequency of these references, for a total of at least 24 such instances). 44 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore personability (with an associated deficit of important political skills crucial for mobilizing and retaining popular support), and his self-defeating potential for dogmatically pursuing personal policy preferences despite legislative or public disapproval.

The most striking difference between Bush and Gore is on the extraversion–introversion dimension. In this regard, Etheredge’s (1978) assessment of personality effects on American foreign policy between 1898 and 1968 bears note. According to Etheredge, there was “a striking cleavage” in his study between introverts and extraverts in foreign policy orientation. Introverts “seem to be drawn to the ideal of a world system operating by impersonal mechanisms. . . . It is as though these people sought a world order that was less personally engaging, more impersonally and automatically controlled,” whereas extraverts were “more interested in involvement and collaboration.” However, it is risky to assume that personality distinctions translate directly into policy differences; for Etheredge, a “paradigm case” of similar policies favored for different reasons, clearly impacted by personality differences, is the divergence in the motives of President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. with reference to, respectively, the League of Nations and the United Nations:

Wilson saw the League of Nations as dealing with international aggression by invoking moral rules and sanctions against the transgressor. Secretary Stettinius saw the United Nations operating more as a forum for discussion and negotiation. In the first case a cold, aloof, introverted person sought a mechanism to impose a solution by imposing a principle. In the second case a warm, egalitarian, extroverted person sought an institution for mutual give-and-take. (p. 450)

In the 2000 election, Etheredge’s paradigmatic cognitive cleavage between introverts and extraverts in policy orientation seems an apt metaphor for the fundamental distinction between the political personalities of Al Gore and George W. Bush.

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 45

References

Al Gore meets the enemy. (1997, August 28). The New York Times, p. A30.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Barber, J. D. (1992). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berke, R. L. (1997, December 5). Gore refuses to concede fund-raising mistakes. The New York Times, p. A28.

Borenstein, D. (1996, August 28). Al Gore, Mr. Vice Personality, meets with California delegates. Knight- Ridder/Tribune News Service, p828K5177. (Infotrac Search Bank article A18622975)

Borger, G. (1997, June 23). Al Gore’s gawky phase. U.S. News & World Report, p. 28.

Breslau, K. (1998, April 27). Gore tries to find his balance. Newsweek, p. 34.

Burka, P. (1999, June). The W. nobody knows: What he’s like in real life. Texas Monthly, pp. 114–115, 135–137.

Bush, G. W. (1999). George W. Bush: A charge to keep. New York: William Morrow.

Collins, C. (1997, September 10). Politicians phone-hop to avoid violating campaign finance laws. Gannett News Service.

Colloff, P. (1999, June). The son rises: How growing up in West Texas made him different from his dad. Texas Monthly, pp. 105–106, 140–142.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (Eds.). (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Drew, E. (1994). On the edge: The Clinton presidency. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Elvin, J. (1997, January 6). Conservatives claim Gore too weird for presidency. Insight on the News, p. 12(4). (Infotrac Search Bank article A19007864)

Etheredge, L. S. (1978). Personality effects on American foreign policy, 1898–1968: A test of interpersonal generalization theory. American Political Science Review, 72, 434–451.

Ferguson, A. (1997, September 22). His struggle to get real. Time, p. 39.

Fineman, H. (1997, September 15). You can call him caught. Newsweek, p. 77.

Frances, A. J., Widiger, T. A., & Sabshin, M. (1991). Psychiatric diagnosis and normality. In D. Offer & M. Sabshin (Eds.), The diversity of normal behavior: Further contributions to normatology (pp. 3–38). New York: Basic Books.

Gore, A. (1992). Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Greenstein, F. I. (1969). Personality and politics: Problems of evidence, inference, and conceptualization. Chicago: Markham.

Hart, P. K. (1999, June). Not so great in ‘78: The lessons he learned in his one and only losing campaign. Texas Monthly, pp. 110–111, 139. 46 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Henneberger, M. (1997, December 14). Author of “Love Story” disputes a Gore story. The New York Times, p. 40.

Hermann, M. G. (1987). Assessing the foreign policy role orientations of sub-Saharan African leaders. In S. G. Walker (Ed.), Role theory and foreign policy analysis (pp. 161–198). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hillin, H. (1992). Al Gore Jr.: His life and career. Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane Press/Carol Publishing Group.

Hollandsworth, S. (1999, June). Younger. Wilder? He lived it up for a while — but maybe not as much as we think. Texas Monthly, pp. 108–110, 143.

Immelman, A. (1993). The assessment of political personality: A psychodiagnostically relevant conceptualization and methodology. Political Psychology, 14, 725–741.

Immelman, A. (1998a). The political personalities of 1996 U.S. presidential candidates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 335–366.

Immelman, A. (1998b, July). The political personality of U.S. vice president Al Gore. Paper presented at the Twenty-First Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal, Quebec.

Immelman, A. (1999a). Millon inventory of diagnostic criteria manual (2nd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minn.

Immelman, A. (1999b, July). The political personality of Texas governor George W. Bush. Paper presented at the Twenty-Second Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Immelman, A. (1999c, July 8). Will Jesse ‘The Adventurer’ run for president? Minneapolis Star Tribune, p. A14.

Immelman, A., Illies, M. S., Kuzma, J. J., & Carlson, D. E. (2000, January). The political personality of Arizona senator John McCain. Unpublished research paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minn.

Immelman, A., & Steinberg, B. S. (Compilers) (1999). Millon inventory of diagnostic criteria (2nd ed.). Unpublished research scale, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minn.

Johnston, D. (2000, June 26). The 2000 campaign: The investigation. The New York Times, p. A14.

Knutson, J. N. (1973). Personality in the study of politics. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of political psychology (pp. 28–56). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press.

Matalin, M., & Carville, J. [with P. Knobler]. (1994). All’s fair: Love, war, and running for president. New York: Random House.

Matthews, C. (2000a, January 11). Hardball with Chris Matthews. CNBC.

Matthews, C. (2000b, March 20). Hardball with Chris Matthews. CNBC.

Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). (1997). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: A biosocial approach to maladaptive learning and functioning. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. (Reprinted 1985 by Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL)

Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 47

Millon, T. (1986a). A theoretical derivation of pathological personalities. In T. Millon & G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM–IV (pp. 639–669). New York: Guilford.

Millon, T. (1986b). Personality prototypes and their diagnostic criteria. In T. Millon & G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM–IV (pp. 671–712). New York: Guilford.

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T. (1991). Normality: What may we learn from evolutionary theory? In D. Offer & M. Sabshin (Eds.), The diversity of normal behavior: Further contributions to normatology (pp. 356–404). New York: Basic Books.

Millon, T. [with L. G. Weiss, C. M. Millon, & R. D. Davis] (1994a). Millon Index of Personality Styles manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Millon, T. (1994b). Personality disorders: Conceptual distinctions and classification issues. In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 279–301). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Millon, T. [with R. D. Davis] (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM–IV and beyond (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1998). Ten subtypes of psychopathy. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 161–170). New York: Guilford.

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (2000). Personality disorders in modern life. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T., & Everly, Jr., G. S. (1985). Personality and its disorders: A biosocial learning approach. New York: Wiley.

Minutaglio, B. (1999). First son: George W. Bush and the Bush family dynasty. New York: Random House/Times Books.

Noah, T. (1997, January 27). Albert the brainiac. U.S. News & World Report, pp. 38–40, 44.

Noah, T. (1998, May 18). Is Gore a serial cheapskate? U.S. News & World Report, p. 10.

Oldham, J. M., & Morris, L. B. (1995). The new personality self-portrait. New York: Bantam Books.

Patoski, J. N. (1999, June). Team player: How he ran the Texas Rangers and became, finally, a successful businessman. Texas Monthly, pp. 113–114, 138–139.

Pooley, E. (1998, February 9). Al’s turn for good news. Time, p. 34.

Pooley, E., & Tumulty, K. (1997, December 15). Can Al bare his soul? Time, pp. 44–51.

Rauber, P. (1997, July/August). The great green hope. Sierra, pp. 40–43, 60–62.

Renshon, S. A. (1995). Character, judgment, and political leadership: Promise, problems, and prospects of the Clinton presidency. In S. A. Renshon (Ed.), The Clinton presidency: Campaigning, governing, and the psychology of leadership (pp. 57–87). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Renshon, S. A. (1996). The psychological assessment of presidential candidates. New York: New York University Press.

Rich, F. (1997, December 16). Who’s sorry now? The New York Times, p. A31. 48 Political Personalities of Bush and Gore

Romano, L. (1998, September 24). Son on the horizon: Gov. George Walker Bush is running hard. But is he heading in his father’s direction? The Washington Post, pp. B1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 25). 1986: A life-changing year. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 26). A Texas childhood. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 27). Following in his father’s path — Step by step by step. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 28). At height of Vietnam, Bush picks Guard. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 29). Young Bush, a political natural, revs up. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 30). Bush name helps fuel oil dealings. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Romano, L., & Lardner, G. Jr. (1999, July 31). Bush moves up to the majors. The Washington Post, pp. A1 ff.

Sheehy, G. (1988). Character: America’s search for leadership. New York: Morrow/Avon.

Sheehy, G. (1999). Hillary’s choice. New York: Random House.

Shribman, D. (1996, December 23). What Gore needs to win in 2000. Fortune, p. 40.

Simonton, D. K. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149–160.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Biography, personality, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928–936.

Simonton, D. K. (1990). Personality and politics. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 670–692). New York: Guilford.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford.

Smith, E. (1999, June). George, Washington: What his first stint there taught him about loyalty. Texas Monthly, pp. 111–113, 144–145.

Snow, T. (1998, July 7). That clunk you hear is our vice-president. The Detroit News, p. A9.

Strack, S. (1991). Personality Adjective Check List manual (rev.). South Pasadena, CA: 21st Century Assessment.

Strack, S. (1997). The PACL: Gauging normal personality styles. In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon inventories: Clinical and personality assessment (pp. 477–497). New York: Guilford.

Thorpe, H. (1999, June). Go east, young man: Child of privilege? Sure, but he left Andover and Yale as a regular guy. Texas Monthly, pp. 107, 132, 134.

Tumulty, K. (1997, September 15). Gore’s turn to squirm. Time, pp. 86–87.

Turque, B. (1998, February 9). The veep stands by his man. Newsweek, p. 34.

Verhovek, S. H. (1998, September 13). Is there room on a Republican ticket for another Bush? The New York Times Magazine, pp. 52–59, 85, 97, 109, 111. Political Personalities of Bush and Gore 49

Wells, R. M. (1996, August 17). Gore: Serving loyalty, ambition. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, pp. 17, 19–20.

Whitman, D. (1998, April 27). Is Al Gore truly the cheap veep? U.S. News & World Report, p. 26.

Who is George W. Bush? (1999, June). Texas Monthly [special report], pp. 105–123, 132, 134–146.

Woodward, B. (1994). The agenda: Inside the Clinton White House. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Woodward, B. (1996). The choice. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Zelnick, B. (1999). Gore: A political life. Washington, DC: Regnery.